SynthesisBMJ open2025
Patient satisfaction with infection prevention and control interventions in acute hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInfection prevention and control (IPC) interventions are multifactorial and are used to prevent healthcare-associated infections in healthcare facilities. However, patient views and enabling patient and public involvement (PPI) in their development has been minimal.
objectivesThis systematic review aims to identify peer-reviewed publications reporting patient satisfaction outcomes in the context of IPC interventions, to document the methods used to assess patient satisfaction and to conduct a meta-analysis on reported satisfaction outcomes.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and the PRISMA statement, with oversight from a steering group including PPI partners. Studies in peer-reviewed journals were included based on eligibility criteria. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched in June 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Included studies investigated satisfaction among hospitalised patients in acute care settings following IPC measures, including isolation, cohorting, screening, hand hygiene, antimicrobial stewardship, patient flagging, education, personal protective equipment use, visiting restrictions and treatment delays DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Titles and abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers; disagreements were resolved by a third. Study quality was assessed using the JBI manual for evidence synthesis. A meta-analysis was conducted where four or more studies used comparable designs and methods within the same areas of IPC, with heterogeneity evaluated using Cochran's Q statistic and I
resultsTwenty-nine studies were identified. Among IPC measures, isolation precautions were the most commonly reported intervention (11 studies, 38%). The Likert scale was the predominant assessment method (13 studies, 45%). Patient satisfaction with IPC interventions ranged from 58.3% to 97.2%. Meta-analysis of four studies using the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey showed substantial heterogeneity (I
conclusionSixty-nine percent of isolated patients reported satisfaction with their care. Patient satisfaction with IPC interventions varies widely, highlighting limitations in current measurement approaches. Strengthening PPI in the design and evaluation of satisfaction measures is essential to capture meaningful data and improvements in IPC programmes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: IS 2024 CRD42024558385.
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.