Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38443810›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Perceived barriers and facilitators to infection prevention and control in Dutch residential care facilities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: a cross-sectional study.

Famke Houben, Casper Dj den Heijer, Nicole Htm Dukers-Muijrers, Claudia Smeets-Peels, Christian Jpa Hoebe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Famke HoubenDepartment of Social Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6200 MD, Maastricht, P.O. box 616, The Netherlands. f.houben@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-8611-4110
Casper Dj den HeijerDepartment of Social Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6200 MD, Maastricht, P.O. box 616, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1476-4346
Nicole Htm Dukers-MuijrersDepartment of Sexual Health, Infectious Diseases and Environmental Health, Living Lab Public Health Mosa, South Limburg Public Health Service, 6400 AA, Heerlen, P.O. box 33, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4896-758X
Claudia Smeets-PeelsStichting Pergamijn, Mercator 2, 6135 KW, Sittard, The Netherlands.
Christian Jpa HoebeDepartment of Social Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6200 MD, Maastricht, P.O. box 616, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1815-0974

Funding

Limburg infection prevention and antibiotic resistance care network (LINK) 331618
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdequate implementation of infection prevention and control (IPC) in residential care facilities (RCFs) for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) is crucial to safeguarding this vulnerable population. Studies in this field are scarce. This study aimed to identify perceived barriers to and facilitators of IPC among professionals working in these settings, along with recommendations to improve IPC, to inform the development of targeted interventions.

methodsWe administered an online questionnaire to 319 professionals from 16 Dutch RCFs for people with IDDs (March 2021-March 2022). Perceived multilevel barriers and facilitators (guideline, client, interpersonal, organisational, care sector, and policy level) were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (totally disagree-totally agree). Recommendations were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (not at all helpful-extremely helpful), supplemented by an open-ended question. Barriers, facilitators, and recommendations were analysed by descriptive statistics. Open answers to recommendations were analysed through thematic coding.

resultsBarriers to IPC implementation included the client group (e.g., lack of hygiene awareness) (63%), competing values between IPC and the home-like environment (42%), high work pressure (39%), and the overwhelming quantity of IPC guidelines/protocols (33%). Facilitators included perceived social support on IPC between professionals and from supervisors (90% and 80%, respectively), procedural clarity of IPC guidelines/protocols (83%), and the sense of urgency for IPC in the organisation (74%). Main recommendations included the implementation of clear IPC policies and regulations (86%), the development of a practical IPC guideline (84%), and the introduction of structural IPC education and training programmes (for new staff members) (85%). Professionals also emphasised the need for IPC improvement efforts to be tailored to the local care context, and to involve clients and their relatives.

conclusionsTo improve IPC in disability care settings, multifaceted strategies should be adopted. Initial efforts should involve clients (and relatives), develop a practical and context-specific IPC guideline, encourage social support among colleagues through interprofessional coaching, reduce workload, and foster an IPC culture including shared responsibility within the organisation.

Indexed as

Developmental DisabilitiesEthnicityChildCross-Sectional StudiesDietary SupplementsHumansHygieneCOVID-19Cross-sectional studiesDevelopmental disabilityInfection controlIntellectual disabilityLong-term care

Identifiers

PMID38443810
PMCPMC10916042

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.