Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37312142›Full record

SynthesisAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2023

Knowledge, attitude and practice of infection prevention and control precautions among laboratory staff: a mixed-methods systematic review.

Haifa Aldhamy, Gregory Maniatopoulos, Victoria L McCune, Ilaf Mansi, Majid Althaqafy, Mark S Pearce

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
13.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Infection Control in Optometric Practice: Evaluating the Impact of Guidelines on Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Behaviours.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Haifa AldhamyPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK. h.o.s.aldhamy2@newcastle.ac.uk.
Gregory ManiatopoulosPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
Victoria L McCuneDepartment of Microbiology, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK.
Ilaf MansiNorth West Ambulance Service, Lancashire, UK.
Majid AlthaqafyInfection Prevention and Control, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Mark S PearcePopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
King Abdulaziz Medical City · SANewcastle University · GBNorth West Ambulance Service NHS Trust · GBQassim University · SASouth Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Leicester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical laboratories provide diagnostic testing services to support the effective delivery of care in today's complex healthcare systems. Processing clinical material and the use of chemicals or radiation presents potential hazard to laboratory workers, from both biological and chemical sources. Nevertheless, the laboratory should be a safe workplace if the identification of possible hazards, clear guidelines, safety rules and infection prevention and control (IPC) precautions are applied and followed. The main aim of this systematic review was to identify, critically appraise and synthesise the research evidence to gain a clear explanation of the implementation and knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of IPC guidelines among hospital laboratory staff.

methodsFor this systematic review we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and CINAHL (EBSCO), PubMed, grey literature, reference lists and citations for studies published between database inception and November, 2021. All qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies whose aim was to explore risk perception and KAP of IPC guidelines among laboratory staff in any healthcare setting were included, without language or date restrictions. Evidence was narratively synthesised into group of themes. The quality of the evidence was assessed with Joanna Briggs Institutes Critical Appraisal Tools.

resultsAfter the full-text screening, a total of 34 articles remained and were included in the final review. Thirty papers were considered to be of high quality and the remaining four were considered to be of low quality. The available evidence shows that there was good knowledge, good attitudes and moderate immunisation status, but there was still poor practice of IPC precautions and an inadequate level of training among laboratory workers.

conclusionThere is a gap among KAP related to the implementation of IPC guidelines, which indicates that laboratory staff may be at high risk of acquiring infections in the workplace. These findings suggest that training (including IPC precautions, safety policies, safety equipment and materials, safety activities, initial biohazard handling, ongoing monitoring and potential exposure) of laboratory staff to increase their knowledge about IPC precautions could improve their use of these precautions.

Indexed as

Health FacilitiesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeDatabases, FactualHumansInfection ControlKnowledgeAttitudeInfection prevention and control guidelinesKnowledgeLaboratory safetyLaboratory staffPractice

Identifiers

PMID37312142
PMCPMC10262112
OpenAlexW4380482218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.