ArticleBMC public health2026
Infection prevention and control measures for Ebola disease and their outcomes from the perspective of health care workers: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundThis study assessed health care workers (HCWs) perspectives related to eight infection prevention and control (IPC) measures (three personal protective equipment (PPE) and five decontamination and disinfection) for Ebola disease discussed during WHO guideline development.
methodsWe conducted a mixed-methods study guided by the Evidence to Decision framework, targeting HCWs involved in managing patients. We assessed: (1) the value of preventing transmission of Orthoebolavirus, adverse effects of PPE and chlorine exposure; (2) perspectives on resource, health equity, feasibility, and acceptability of IPC measures.
resultsAnalysis included 73 survey respondents and 16 interviews. Preventing risk of transmission was critical (90%), due to high fatality. Side effects of chlorine (49%) and PPE (38%) were critical due to irritation and heat stress, but benefits outweighed harms. Covering head, neck, and mucous membranes was more acceptable (72%) than covering mucous membranes only as it enhances safety but is more costly (49%). Use of disposable PPE versus reusable raised equity concerns (62%) due to supply sustainability. Goggles under vs. over the hood was less feasible (55%) as they restrict visibility for those wearing glasses. Spraying was less acceptable (67%) than wiping as the latter is more effective. Spraying HCWs during doffing was less acceptable (57%) due to risk of transmission. Out of four options, removing outer and inner glove was less acceptable (70%) to avoid exposing the skin. Hand hygiene trade-offs between alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR), chlorine, and soap & water varied, 45% found ABHR more acceptable, less pungent and kills the virus, but is resource-intensive (58%). Incineration was more acceptable (59%) and feasible (58%) than disinfection, but incinerator is costly.
conclusionThis study highlighted variability in acceptability, feasibility, and equity concerns for IPC measures. Discussion of those findings during guideline development was crucial to increase applicability and acceptability by end users.
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.