Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37563633›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2023

Contact investigations for antibiotic-resistant bacteria: a mixed-methods study of patients' comprehension of and compliance with self-sampling requests post-discharge.

Anneloes van Veen, Dominique L A Lescure, Suzanne J C Verhaegh, Inge de Goeij, Vicki Erasmus, Ed F van Beeck, Aimée Tjon-A-Tsien, José Splinter, Jan C Christiaanse, Marjolein Damen and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

17 authors.

Anneloes van VeenDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Dominique L A LescureDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Suzanne J C VerhaeghDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Inge de GoeijDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Vicki ErasmusDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Ed F van BeeckDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Aimée Tjon-A-TsienDepartment of Infectious Disease Control, Municipal Public Health Service Rotterdam-Rijnmond, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
José SplinterDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, Franciscus Gasthuis and Vlietland, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan C ChristiaanseGeneral Practitioners Practice 'Nieuwe Maas', Schiedam, The Netherlands.
Marjolein DamenDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Maasstad General Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Elisabeth G W HuijskensDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Sunita PaltansingDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, Franciscus Gasthuis and Vlietland, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Michiel van RijnDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Ikazia Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jacobien VeenemansDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Margreet C VosDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Juliëtte A SeverinDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. j.severin@erasmusmc.nl.
Infection Prevention and Antimicrobial Resistance Care Network South-western Netherlands

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContact investigation is an important tool to identify unrecognized patients who are colonized with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Many Dutch hospitals include already discharged contact patients by sending them a self-sampling request at home, incl. an information letter and sampling materials. Each hospital composes these information letters on their own initiative, however, whether discharged patients comprehend and comply with these requests remains unclear. Therefore, the aim was to provide insight into patients' comprehension of and self-reported compliance with self-sampling requests post-discharge.

methodsThis mixed-methods study was performed in eight Dutch hospitals. First, the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) language level of self-sampling request letters was established. Second, a questionnaire about patients' comprehension of the letter, self-reported compliance, and reasons for compliance or non-compliance were sent to patients that received such a request in 2018/2019. Finally, a random selection of questionnaire respondents was interviewed between January and March 2020 to gain additional insights.

resultsCEFR levels of 15 letters were established. Four letters were assigned level B1, four letters B1-B2, and seven letters B2. The majority of patients reported good comprehension of the letter they had received. Conversely, some respondents indicated that information about the bacterium (18.4%), the way in which results would be communicated (18.1%), and the self-sampling instructions (9.7%) were (partially) unclear. Furthermore, self-reported compliance was high (88.8%). Reasons to comply were personal health (84.3%), the health of others (71.9%), and general patient safety (96.1%). Compliant patients appeared to have a need for confirmation, wanted to protect family and/or friends, and felt they were providing the hospital the ability to control the transmission of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Although a limited number of non-compliant patients responded to the questionnaire, it seemed that more patients did not comply with self-sampling requests when they received a letter in a higher CEFR-level (B2) compared to a lower CEFR-level (< B2) (9.8% vs. 2.5%, P = 0.049).

conclusionsThis study showed an overall good comprehension of and high self-reported compliance with self-sampling requests post-discharge. Providing balanced information in self-sampling request letters has the potential to reduce patient's ambiguity and concerns, and can cause increased compliance with self-sampling requests.

Indexed as

AftercarePatient DischargeComprehensionContact TracingHumansPatientsAntimicrobial drug resistanceComplianceComprehensionContact tracingHealth communicationHealth literacySelf-examination

Identifiers

PMID37563633
PMCPMC10413776

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.