Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38141665›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of hospital infection2024

Burdens of infection control on healthcare workers: a scoping review.

R Ungar, R Gur-Arie, G S Heriot, E Jamrozik

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of hospital infection, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

R UngarMelbourne Medical School, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
R Gur-ArieCenter for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
G S HeriotDepartment of Infectious Diseases, University of Melbourne, Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia.
E JamrozikEthox Centre and Pandemic Sciences Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Monash Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: euzebiusz.jamrozik@ethox.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 203132Wellcome Trust 221719
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHospital-acquired infections (HAIs) pose a significant risk to patients, and are a major focus of infection prevention and control policies (IPC). One under-recognized reason for the generally poor compliance with IPC is that it is burdensome for healthcare workers (HCWs).

aimTo identify the burdens of IPC for HCWs.

methodsPubMed and CINAHL were searched for studies published in English since 2000 regarding compliance with IPC and the burdens associated with compliance. After screening 1018 initial results, 25 articles were included in the final review.

resultsEvidence was found for burdens including dermatological complications, headaches, sensory symptoms and time pressure. Tools designed to measure compliance with IPC have limitations, and rarely assess the burdens of compliance. A strong safety culture predicted positive compliance, while knowledge of the underlying rationale for IPC had a non-linear relationship with compliance.

conclusionFuture research should clarify IPC-related burdens and how these may be minimized to achieve better compliance.

Indexed as

Cross InfectionInfection ControlHealth PersonnelHumansSafety ManagementGuideline adherenceHealthcare attitudesInfection preventionQuality

Identifiers

PMID38141665
PMCPMC7617856

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.