ArticleInfection prevention in practice2024
Knowledge, attitudes and practices on prevention and control of high-consequence infectious diseases and critical care among intensive care personnel in Rwanda: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in Infection prevention in practice, 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.
- Determinants of healthcare workers' attitudes towards Marburg virus disease outbreak response in Northwest Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of awareness, perceptions, and compliance with infection prevention and control protocols among healthcare professionals at a tertiary hospital in Nasarawa State, Nigeria.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding transfusion-related acute lung injury among healthcare providers in Jiangsu: a multicenter cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Classifying nursing roles in critical infectious disease care: a multicenter cross-sectional study using cluster analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Intensive care personnel in countries prone to outbreaks of high-consequence infectious diseases (HCIDs), such as Ebola virus disease, stand at the forefront of caring for affected patients. This study describes the knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of intensive care personnel in Rwanda on the management and infection prevention and control (IPC) of HCIDs. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was carried out among staff working in the 4 operational intensive care units in September 2022. The self-administered questionnaire collected information on participants' background and their KAP on critical care (CC), HCIDs and IPC. Results: Of the 107 participants, 67 (62.6%) had less than 4 years' work experience in CC. 41 (38.3%) of them had attended trainings on IPC since 2020. In univariate analyses, a higher knowledge score was associated with being a physician, years of working in CC and differed by hospital. A large proportion perceived their knowledge on CC as good or very good (58.0%) and their everyday risk of acquiring an infection as at least high (48.6%). Overall, 72.9% reported compliance with hand hygiene measures. However, around a quarter of participants reported rarely or never avoiding recapping of needles or never or rarely taking additional precautions during aerosol-generating procedures. Conclusions: Staff had a moderate knowledge base and might benefit from continuous learning on CC and HCIDs. The perception of high risk of infection at work stands in contrast with lack of compliance with basic IPC practices which should be reinforced to avoid preventable and potentially fatal infections.
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.