ArticleThe Journal of hospital infection2025
Identifying indicators and targets for the new World Health Organization Global Framework on Infection Prevention and Control: an e-Delphi study.
Article in The Journal of hospital infection, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) recently developed the Global Action Plan (GAP) and Monitoring Framework (MF) for Infection Prevention and Control (IPC). An e-Delphi survey was conducted as part of a consultative process to achieve consensus on IPC MF indicators and targets.
methodsThe study was conducted as an e-Delphi consensus-seeking exercise, with two rounds of sequential surveys. In round 1, participants were asked to assess each indicator and target using a five-point Likert scale. In round 2, participants were asked to re-assess those indicators and targets that did not reach consensus, and to rank all indicators and targets in priority order. 'Consensus' was defined as when >70% of the responses fell within the two positive extreme ranges of the scale and, at the same time, <5% of the responses were within the two negative extreme ranges.
findingsIn total, 86 country representatives along with experts from 63 countries participated in the initial draft IPC MF development. The e-Delphi study invited 394 participants, with response rates of 36% (142/394) in round 1 and 69% (98/142) in round 2. Of the 134 indicators and 27 targets included in round 1, all but one achieved consensus, and 16 showed >5% level of disagreement. In round 2, three indicators were rejected, and participants ranked the top 10 global targets and top five national targets. The survey showed strong support for improving IPC surveillance, whilst research ranked lower due to other competing priorities.
conclusionA high level of agreement on the proposed indicators and targets to be monitored by all countries to track progress in IPC was achieved through a strong consensus building process. The WHO IPC GAP and MF was adopted by all countries during the 77
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.