ArticleBMC health services research2024
Electronic monitoring versus manual paper-based monitoring for hand hygiene compliance: a comprehensive health economic assessment analysis.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMonitoring hand hygiene compliance (HHC) of healthcare providers (HCPs) in healthcare facilities is critical for hand hygiene (HH) promotion. However, less is known about the cost and effectiveness of different HHC monitoring tools. In this study, we aimed to compare various health economic indicators corresponding to electronic system-based monitoring (ESM) and manual paper-based monitoring (MPM) for HHC to provide evidence-based advice for HHC monitoring measures targeted selecting.
methodsA before and after study in 40 clinical departments with 4,524 healthcare providers was conducted from December 2022 to January 2023 (MPM implementation phase) and March 2023 to May 2023 (ESM implementation phase). The cost-effectiveness, cost-efficiency, the extent of the Hawthorne effect, and indirect cost-benefit of the two monitoring methods were compared.
resultsThe total cost spent on ESM for the 40 departments (17,702.92 CNY) was 4,123.76 CNY lower than that of MPM (21,826.68 CNY). The HHC of MPM (80.16%) was higher than that of ESM (69.82%) (p < 0.01). In high- and medium-risk departments, the cost-effectiveness ratio of ESM (7,977.90 CNY and 13,794.60 CNY, respectively) was lower than that of MPM (9,039.61 CNY and 14,549.05 CNY, respectively). In low-risk departments, the cost-effectiveness ratio of ESM (3,910.77 CNY) was higher than that of MPM (3,899.06 CNY). Compared with ESM, the incremental cost of MPM in all departments was 4,123.76 CNY, the incremental effectiveness was 10.34%, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 39,881.62 CNY. Between the two monitoring methods, the efficiency of ESM (48.11%) in all departments was higher than that of MPM (14.20%) (p < 0.01). The cost-efficiency ratio of MPM in all departments (155,775.56 CNY) was higher than that of ESM (36,796.76 CNY). The extent of Hawthorne effect of MPM of HHC in all departments (43.99%) was higher than that of ESM (35.69%) (p < 0.01). When ESM was used as the HHC monitoring approach, the HAI rates (1.39%) in all departments were higher than that when MPM was used (1.34%) (p = 0.562). When the payment willingness was less than 40,000 CNY, the ESM method was the better option for cost-effectiveness; When the input exceeded this threshold, the MPM method was the better option for cost-effectiveness.
conclusionsESM exhibited notable advantages over MPM in terms of cost-effectiveness, cost-efficiency, cost-benefit, and the Hawthorne effect.
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.