ReviewHealth economics review2024
A systematic review of economic evaluation of healthcare associated infection prevention and control interventions in long term care facilities.
Review in Health economics review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Disposability: A Systematic Review of Reusable and Single-Use Products in Hygiene-Related Nursing Care in the ICU.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Review
- Article
- Impact of infection prevention and control on costs, quality, safety and health in long-term care facilities: a systematic review protocol.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Combating Healthcare-Associated Infections in Modern Hospitals: Nanotechnology-Based Approaches in the Era of Antimicrobial Resistance.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
backgroundHealthcare-associated infections (HCAI) are common in long-term care facilities (LTCF) and cause significant burden. Infection prevention and control (IPC) measures include the clinical best practices (CBP) of hand hygiene, hygiene and sanitation, screening, and basic and additional precautions. Few studies demonstrate their cost-effectiveness in LTCF, and those that do, largely focus on one CBP. An overarching synthesis of IPC economic analyses in this context is warranted. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of CBP applied in LTCF.
methodsWe twice queried CINAHL, Cochrane, EconLit, Embase, Medline, Web of Science and Scopus for studies published in the last three decades of economic evaluations of CBP in LTCF. We included controlled and randomized clinical trials, cohort, longitudinal, follow-up, prospective, retrospective, cross-sectional, and simulations studies, as well as those based on mathematical or statistical modelling. Two reviewers conducted study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment of studies. We applied discounting rates of 3%, 5% and 8%, and presented all costs in 2022 Canadian dollars. The protocol of this review was registered with Research Registry (reviewregistry1210) and published in BMC Systematic Reviews.
findingsWe found 3,331 records and then 822 records; ten studies were retained. The economic analyses described were cost-minimization (n = 1), cost-benefit (n = 1), cost-savings (n = 2), cost-utility (n = 2) and cost-effectiveness which included cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses (n = 4). Four studies were high quality, three were moderate, and three were low quality. Inter-rater agreement for quality assessment was 91⋅7%. All studies (n = 10) demonstrated that CBP associated with IPC are clinically effective in LTCF and many (n = 6) demonstrated their cost effectiveness.
interpretationOngoing economic evaluation research of IPC remains essential to underpin healthcare policy choices guided by empirical evidence for LTCF residents and staff.
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.