↓ Skip to main content

Estimating the impact of post randomization changes in staff behavior in infection prevention trials: a mathematical modeling approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Estimating the impact of post randomization changes in staff behavior in infection prevention trials: a mathematical modeling approach
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2632-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric T. Lofgren

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of behavior-based interventions are particularly vulnerable to post-randomization changes between study arms. We assess the impact of such a change in a large, multicenter study of universal contact precautions to prevent infection transmission in intensive care units. We construct a stochastic mathematical model of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) acquisition in a simulated 18-bed intensive care unit (ICU). Using parameters from a recent study of contact precautions that reported a post-randomization change in contact rates, with fewer visits observed in the treatment arm, we explore the impact of several possible interpretations of this change on MRSA acquisition rates. Scenarios where contact precautions resulted in less patient visitation resulted in a mean decrease in MRSA acquisition rate of 37%, accounting for much of the effect reported in the trial. Behavior changes that impact the contact rate have the potential to drastically alter the results of RCTs in infection control settings. Careful monitoring for these changes, and an assessment of which changes will likely have the greatest impact on the study before the study begins are both recommended.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 30%
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Librarian 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Environmental Science 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 11 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 February 2019.
All research outputs
#6,966,272
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,234
of 7,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,646
of 317,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#50
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,591 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.