↓ Skip to main content

Improving adherence to Standard Precautions for the control of health care-associated infections

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Improving adherence to Standard Precautions for the control of health care-associated infections
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010768.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Donna Moralejo, Regina El Dib, Rafaela A Prata, Pasqual Barretti, Ione Corrêa

Abstract

'Standard Precautions' refers to a system of actions, such as using personal protective equipment or adhering to safe handling of needles, that healthcare workers take to reduce the spread of germs in healthcare settings such as hospitals and nursing homes. To assess the effectiveness of interventions that target healthcare workers to improve adherence to Standard Precautions in patient care. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, two other databases, and two trials registers. We applied no language restrictions. The date of the most recent search was 14 February 2017. We included randomised trials of individuals, cluster-randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time-series studies that evaluated any intervention to improve adherence to Standard Precautions by any healthcare worker with responsibility for patient care in any hospital, long-term care or community setting, or artificial setting, such as a classroom or a learning laboratory. Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data from eligible trials, and assessed risk of bias for each included study, using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Because of substantial heterogeneity among interventions and outcome measures, meta-analysis was not warranted. We used the GRADE approach to assess certainty of evidence and have presented results narratively in 'Summary of findings' tables. We included eight studies with a total of 673 participants; three studies were conducted in Asia, two in Europe, two in North America, and one in Australia. Five studies were randomised trials, two were cluster-randomised trials, and one was a non-randomised trial. Three studies compared different educational approaches versus no education, one study compared education with visualisation of respiratory particle dispersion versus education alone, two studies compared education with additional infection control support versus no intervention, one study compared peer evaluation versus no intervention, and one study evaluated use of a checklist and coloured cues. We considered all studies to be at high risk of bias with different risks. All eight studies used different measures to assess healthcare workers' adherence to Standard Precautions. Three studies also assessed healthcare workers' knowledge, and one measured rates of colonisation with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) among residents and staff of long-term care facilities. Because of heterogeneity in interventions and outcome measures, we did not conduct a meta-analysis.Education may slightly improve both healthcare workers' adherence to Standard Precautions (three studies; four centres) and their level of knowledge (two studies; three centres; low certainty of evidence for both outcomes).Education with visualisation of respiratory particle dispersion probably improves healthcare workers' use of facial protection but probably leads to little or no difference in knowledge (one study; 20 nurses; moderate certainty of evidence for both outcomes).Education with additional infection control support may slightly improve healthcare workers' adherence to Standard Precautions (two studies; 44 long-term care facilities; low certainty of evidence) but probably leads to little or no difference in rates of health care-associated colonisation with MRSA (one study; 32 long-term care facilities; moderate certainty of evidence).Peer evaluation probably improves healthcare workers' adherence to Standard Precautions (one study; one hospital; moderate certainty of evidence).Checklists and coloured cues probably improve healthcare workers' adherence to Standard Precautions (one study; one hospital; moderate certainty of evidence). Considerable variation in interventions and in outcome measures used, along with high risk of bias and variability in the certainty of evidence, makes it difficult to draw conclusions about effectiveness of the interventions. This review underlines the need to conduct more robust studies evaluating similar types of interventions and using similar outcome measures.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 133 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 21%
Student > Bachelor 21 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Researcher 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 25 19%
Unknown 28 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 21%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Psychology 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 31 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 09 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,233,689
of 13,791,430 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,605
of 10,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,950
of 272,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#94
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,791,430 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,737 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 272,036 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 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 55% of its contemporaries.