ArticleCurationis2024
Midwives' compliance with post-exposure prophylaxis guidelines in Tshwane District, South Africa.
Article in Curationis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV) remains a major public health concern. Midwifery practitioners as frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) remain susceptible to occupational exposure to infections while performing their routine duties. It is estimated that 90% of occupational exposures occur because of a lack of awareness and training regarding prevention and measures to be taken in case of accidental exposure.
objectivesThe study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes and compliance of midwifery practitioners regarding post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) guidelines.
methodConcurrent mixed-methods research approach with qualitative nested in quantitative design was followed. A random simple sampling technique was used to collect quantitative data from 71 midwifery practitioners. Simultaneously, a purposive non-probability sampling technique was used for the qualitative approach with two occupational health and safety (OHS) practitioners and 13 midwifery practitioners. Data were collected through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analysed with SPSS version 24 and presented in tables and figures, and thematic analysis was employed for the qualitative strand.
resultsThe midwifery practitioners have good knowledge about PEP for HIV. However, the study revealed the underreporting of accidental exposures to blood and body fluids (BBFs) and the underutilisation of available PEP services.
conclusionMaternity units are high-risk clinical environments. Underreporting of incidents of exposure remains prevalent among midwifery practitioners.Contribution: The findings will inform policy development structures and hospital management regarding knowledge and implementation gaps related to PEP guidelines in the specific hospitals. Strategies to improve compliance with PEP among midwifery practitioners were developed as a derivative from study findings.
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.