Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39152446›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Emergency infection prevention and control training in fragile, conflict-affected or vulnerable settings: a scoping review.

Julii Brainard, Isabel Catalina Swindells, Joanna Wild, Charlotte Christiane Hammer, Emilio Hornsey, Hibak Osman Mahamed, Victoria Willet

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

7 authors.

Julii BrainardNorwich Medical School University of East, Anglia Norwich, UK. j.brainard@uea.ac.uk.
Isabel Catalina SwindellsUCL Medical School, University College London, London, UK.
Joanna WildOL4All, Oxford, UK.
Charlotte Christiane HammerDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Emilio HornseyLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, UK Public Health Rapid Support Team, UK Health Security Agency, and , London, UK.
Hibak Osman MahamedCountry Readiness Strengthening, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Victoria WilletCountry Readiness Strengthening, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is uncertain what could be the best training methods for infection prevention and control when an infectious disease threat is active or imminent in especially vulnerable or resource-scarce settings.

methodsA scoping review was undertaken to find and summarise relevant information about training modalities, replicability and effectiveness of IPC training programmes for clinical staff as reported in multiple study designs. Eligible settings were conflict-affected or in countries classified as low-income or lower-middle income (World Bank 2022 classifications). Search terms for LILACS and Scopus were developed with input of an expert working group. Initially found articles were dual-screened independently, data were extracted especially about infection threat, training outcomes, needs assessment and teaching modalities. Backwards and forwards citation searches were done to find additional studies. Narrative summary describes outcomes and aspects of the training programmes. A customised quality assessment tool was developed to describe whether each study could be informative for developing specific future training programmes in relevant vulnerable settings, based on six questions about replicability and eight questions about other biases.

findingsIncluded studies numbered 29, almost all (n = 27) were pre-post design, two were trials. Information within the included studies to enable replicability was low (average score 3.7/6). Nearly all studies reported significant improvement in outcomes suggesting that the predominant study design (pre-post) is inadequate to assess improvement with low bias, that any and all such training is beneficial, or that publication bias prevented reporting of less successful interventions and thus a informative overview.

conclusionIt seems likely that many possible training formats and methods can lead to improved worker knowledge, skills and / or practice in infection prevention and control. Definitive evidence in favour of any specific training format or method is hard to demonstrate due to incomplete descriptions, lack of documentation about unsuccessful training, and few least-biased study designs (experimental trials). Our results suggest that there is a significant opportunity to design experiments that could give insights in favour of or against specific training methods. "Sleeping" protocols for randomised controlled trials could be developed and then applied quickly when relevant future events arise, with evaluation for outcomes such as knowledge, practices, skills, confidence, and awareness.

Indexed as

Infection ControlArmed ConflictsDeveloping CountriesHealth PersonnelHumansEducationEmergencyInfection-controlInfectionsTraining

Identifiers

PMID39152446
PMCPMC11328436

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.