ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Comparative effectiveness of a multimodal intervention package on surface cleaning and disinfection in Brazilian neonatal intensive care units.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the impact of a package of interventions on surface cleaning and disinfection in two public and private neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Method: This is a quasi-experimental, quantitative study. The study consisted of three phases: baseline (phase I), implementation of the intervention package without feedback to the team (phase II), and, finally, short-term monitoring with feedback to the team (phase III). A total of 864 evaluations were carried out according to the monitoring methods: adenosine triphosphate, visual inspection, microbial load counting, and detection of Staphylococcus aureus and testing for its methicillin resistance (MRSA) in each unit over 4 months, evaluating six high-frequency touch surfaces, before and after cleaning and disinfection carried out by nursing and sanitizing professionals. Results: When comparing the effect of the package in the two units (public and private), no significant differences were found in the proportions of MRSA-positive surfaces in all the phases evaluated. The same occurred concerning the ATP method, which showed no significant differences between the hospitals in all study phases. Concerning the microbial count, in phase II of the study, only on one surface (scales) was a significantly lower difference found in the private hospital compared to the public one. Visual inspection indicated that the private NICU had a substantially higher proportion of surfaces with adequate hygiene in phase I: the infusion pump and the armchair; in phase II, the counter and in phase III again the counter surface. Concerning human factors, when comparing the two institutions, there were no statistically significant associations or correlations with job satisfaction. However, the public institution had higher work performance scores than the private one. Conclusion: The study highlights that the rigorous implementation of intervention packages for cleaning in NICUs, even though they are different, still showed similar results in terms of effectiveness for all the methods used, except visual inspection. This study showed that even though the employees had various levels of work performance, there was still a similar effect on the outcome of the intervention package.
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.