ArticleInfection control and hospital epidemiology2026
Do infection prevention and control messages reach the bedside? A national evaluation of communication and training practices.
Article in Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2026. 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
objectiveThe implementation of the World Health Organization's multimodal strategy is crucial for strengthening infection prevention and control (IPC) programs. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the perceptions of infection prevention and control professionals (IPCPs) and healthcare workers (HCWs) regarding the effectiveness of the multimodal strategy.
methodsIn this study, an online survey was designed that included five MM components: system change, education and training, monitoring and feedback, reminders and communication, and cultural change. The survey was completed by IPCPs and HCWs within the institutions.
resultsA total of 102 IPCPs and 166 HCWs from 96 institutions participated in the survey. The mean career duration was 19.8 ± 9.5 years. An Infection Control Committee (ICC) was present in 98% of participants' institutions, and 88% held meetings every three months. Only 10 (10.4%) institutions met the ratio of 1IPC nurse per 150 beds. Effective communication techniques training was provided annually to 55.9% of IPCPs and 59.6% of HCWs.Eighty-one (79.4%) IPCPs reported using effective communication when explaining the five indications of hand hygiene, but only 77 (46.4%) HCWs agreed (P < .001). Ninety-one (89.2%) IPCPs confirmed that effective communication techniques were used in bundle training. But, only 25 (15.0%) HCWs agreed, while 112 (67.5%) HCWs reported being undecided (P < .001). Sixty-one (64.7%) IPCPs and 130 (78.3%) HCWs believed that their institutions effectively motivated HCWs towards IPC measures compliance. However, 44 (43.1%) IPCPs and 29 (17.5%) HCWs were undecided (P = .002).
conclusionThe survey reveals significant inconsistencies among IPCPs and HCWs regarding communication effectiveness, and perceptions of compliance with infection-control measures. These findings highlight the need for more inclusive and transparent communication strategies, regular interdisciplinary training, and stronger organizational support to improve IPC practices.
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.