ArticleAmerican journal of infection control2025
Infection preventionists' current and preferred training strategies and tools.
Article in American journal of infection control, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does Virtual Reality Training Translate into Real-world Infection Prevention and Control Practice? A Systematic Review.Medical science educator · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in infection prevention and control education: toward intelligent, real-time clinical learning systems.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Virtual reality for education on infection prevention and control: the impact on medical students' knowledge, attitudes and practices.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEducating health care staff on infection prevention and control (IPC) is an essential role of infection preventionists (IPs), but the COVID-19 pandemic diverted resources away from IPC education.
methodsAssociation for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology members were invited to complete an online survey from spring 2023 to assess current and preferred approaches and tools for training health care personnel on IPC. Vendors, retirees, APIC staff, or those not working in health care or public health were excluded.
resultsIn all, 2,432 IPs participated. IPs were more likely to report engaging in impromptu health care worker training (ie, just-in-time teaching and team huddles) versus planned educational activities (ie, learning modules, formal presentations, train-the-trainer, or simulation; Kruskal-Wallis = 288, P < .001). IPs' top preferred teaching methodologies included simulation or interactive activity, and their lowest preferred approach was independent learning modules. IPC training apps were frequently requested technology. DISCUSSION: IPs ranked simulation as their top preferred teaching method; however, simulation was one of the least frequently used approaches. IP education should include strategies for delivering effective impromptu training and how to develop and implement interactive simulation-based education.
conclusionsThe expressed needs and preferences of IPs should be considered when developing IPC-related teaching and training tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.