Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy of interventions to promote hand hygiene in hospital: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the relative efficacy of the World Health Organization 2005 campaign (WHO-5) and other interventions to promote hand hygiene among healthcare workers in hospital settings and to summarize associated information on use of resources.

Design

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Cochrane Library, and the EPOC register (December 2009 to February 2014); studies selected by the same search terms in previous systematic reviews (1980-2009).

Review methods

Included studies were randomised controlled trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after trials, and interrupted time series studies implementing an intervention to improve compliance with hand hygiene among healthcare workers in hospital settings and measuring compliance or appropriate proxies that met predefined quality inclusion criteria. When studies had not used appropriate analytical methods, primary data were re-analysed. Random effects and network meta-analyses were performed on studies reporting directly observed compliance with hand hygiene when they were considered sufficiently homogeneous with regard to interventions and participants. Information on resources required for interventions was extracted and graded into three levels.

Results

Of 3639 studies retrieved, 41 met the inclusion criteria (six randomised controlled trials, 32 interrupted time series, one non-randomised trial, and two controlled before-after studies). Meta-analysis of two randomised controlled trials showed the addition of goal setting to WHO-5 was associated with improved compliance (pooled odds ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.76; I(2)=81%). Of 22 pairwise comparisons from interrupted time series, 18 showed stepwise increases in compliance with hand hygiene, and all but four showed a trend for increasing compliance after the intervention. Network meta-analysis indicated considerable uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of interventions, but nonetheless provided evidence that WHO-5 is effective and that compliance can be further improved by adding interventions including goal setting, reward incentives, and accountability. Nineteen studies reported clinical outcomes; data from these were consistent with clinically important reductions in rates of infection resulting from improved hand hygiene for some but not all important hospital pathogens. Reported costs of interventions ranged from $225 to $4669 (£146-£3035; €204-€4229) per 1000 bed days.

Conclusion

Promotion of hand hygiene with WHO-5 is effective at increasing compliance in healthcare workers. Addition of goal setting, reward incentives, and accountability strategies can lead to further improvements. Reporting of resources required for such interventions remains inadequate.

SUBMITTER: Luangasanatip N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4517539 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHand hygiene is a critical behaviour for infection control but efforts to raise compliance among clinical professionals have been met with mixed success. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the effectiveness of the behaviour change techniques utilised in recent hand hygiene interventions that seek to improve hand hygiene compliance among nurses in hospitals in high-income countries. Nurses are at the frontline of healthcare delivery, and so improving their HH behaviour and thus increasing HHC rates will have a relatively large impact on reducing transmission and preventing healthcare acquired infections.MethodsHigh-quality studies among nurses in high-income countries were surveyed from the scientific literature, following PRISMA guidelines, to identify which kinds of behaviour change mechanisms have been used to effectively increase hand hygiene compliance. Only seven studies met all inclusion criteria. A formal meta-analysis was not conducted due to the heterogeneity of the included studies. Instead, the review analysed studies in line with the Intervention Component Analysis approach to identify which differences in intervention characteristics appear to be important. Analysis proceeded in two steps: first, the Effective Practice and Organization of Care Data Extraction Checklist was used to identify the study design and to describe the intervention, target population, setting, results, outcome measures, and analytic approach. The second step involved inferring the behavioural change techniques used in the complex study interventions. Following coding, logic models were then inferred for each study to identify the Theory of Change behind each intervention. These Theories of Change were then examined for suggestions as to which BCTs were likely to have been responsible for any effectiveness observed.ResultsGoals and planning (to achieve specific ends), comparison of behaviour (to peers or some ideal) and feedback and monitoring (observing and providing feedback about behaviour or outcomes) were the most frequently used behaviour change technique groupings used across studies and within interventions.ConclusionThe complexity of the interventions used and lack of sufficient studies makes assignment of responsibility for behaviour change to specific behaviour change techniques difficult. Delivery channels and activities identified in the study Theories of Change were also highly individualized and so difficult to compare. However, we identified a temporal shift in types of techniques used in these recent studies on HH interventions, as compared with studies from prior to the review period. These newer interventions did not focus on providing access to alcohol-based hand rub or trying to solely encourage administrative support. Instead, they had nurses create goals and plan how to best facilitate HH, compared both individuals' and the group's behaviour to others, and focused on providing feedback.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Helping adults and children develop better hygiene habits is an important public health focus. As infection causing bacteria can live on one's body and in the surrounding environment, more effective interventions should simultaneously encourage personal-hygiene (e.g. hand-hygiene) and environmental-disinfecting (e.g. cleaning surfaces). To inform the development of a future multi-faceted intervention to improve public health, a systematic literature review was conducted on behavior change interventions designed to increase hand-hygiene and environmental-disinfecting in settings likely to include children. METHODS:The search was conducted over two comprehensive data-bases, Ebsco Medline and Web of Science, to locate intervention studies that aimed to increase hand-hygiene or environmental-disinfecting behavior in settings likely to include children. Located article titles and abstracts were independently assessed, and the full-texts of agreed articles were collaboratively assessed for inclusion. Of the 2893 titles assessed, 29 met the eligibility criteria. The extracted data describe the Behavior Change Techniques (version 1) that the interventions employed and the interventions' effectiveness. The techniques were then linked to their associated theoretical domains and to their capability-opportunity-motivation (i.e., COM-B model) components, as described in the Behavior Change Wheel. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies' methods and measures, a meta-analysis was not conducted. RESULTS:A total of 29 studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of interventions were designed to increase hand-hygiene alone (N =?27), and the remaining two interventions were designed to increase both hand-hygiene and environmental-disinfecting. The most used techniques involved shaping knowledge (N =?22) and antecedents (N =?21). Interventions that included techniques targeting four or more theoretical domains and all the capability-opportunity-motivation components were descriptively more effective. CONCLUSIONS:In alignment with previous findings, the current review encourages future interventions to target multiple theoretical domains, across all capability-opportunity-motivation components. The discussion urges interventionists to consider the appropriateness of interventions in their development, feasibility/pilot, evaluation, and implementation stages. REGISTRATION:Prospero ID - CRD42019133735.

Project description:BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.Prospero registration numberCRD42017073375.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the comparative efficacy of drug and non-drug interventions for reducing symptoms of depression in people with dementia who experience depression as a neuropsychiatric symptom of dementia or have a diagnosis of a major depressive disorder.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and grey literature between inception and 15 October 2020.Eligibility criteria for study selectionRandomised trials comparing drug or non-drug interventions with usual care or any other intervention targeting symptoms of depression in people with dementia.Main outcome measuresPairs of reviewers screened studies, abstracted aggregate level data, and appraised risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool, which facilitated the derivation of standardised mean differences and back transformed mean differences (on the Cornell scale for depression in dementia) from bayesian random effects network meta-analyses and pairwise meta-analyses.ResultsOf 22 138 citations screened, 256 studies (28 483 people with dementia) were included. Missing data posed the greatest risk to review findings. In the network meta-analysis of studies including people with dementia without a diagnosis of a major depressive disorder who were experiencing symptoms of depression (213 studies; 25 177 people with dementia; between study variance 0.23), seven interventions were associated with a greater reduction in symptoms of depression compared with usual care: cognitive stimulation (mean difference -2.93, 95% credible interval -4.35 to -1.52), cognitive stimulation combined with a cholinesterase inhibitor (-11.39, -18.38 to -3.93), massage and touch therapy (-9.03, -12.28 to -5.88), multidisciplinary care (-1.98, -3.80 to -0.16), occupational therapy (-2.59, -4.70 to -0.40), exercise combined with social interaction and cognitive stimulation (-12.37, -19.01 to -5.36), and reminiscence therapy (-2.30, -3.68 to -0.93). Except for massage and touch therapy, cognitive stimulation combined with a cholinesterase inhibitor, and cognitive stimulation combined with exercise and social interaction, which were more efficacious than some drug interventions, no statistically significant difference was found in the comparative efficacy of drug and non-drug interventions for reducing symptoms of depression in people with dementia without a diagnosis of a major depressive disorder. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity precluded network meta-analysis of studies comparing the efficacy of interventions specifically for reducing symptoms of depression in people with dementia and a major depressive disorder (22 studies; 1829 patients).ConclusionsIn this systematic review, non-drug interventions were found to be more efficacious than drug interventions for reducing symptoms of depression in people with dementia without a major depressive disorder.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017050130.

Project description:BackgroundMany treatments are currently available for amblyopic patients; although, the comparative efficacy of these therapies is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to establish the relative efficacy of these treatments for amblyopia.MethodsElectronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) were systematically searched from inception to Sep. 2019. Only Randomized clinical trials comparing any two or three of the following treatments were included: refractive correction (spectacles alone), patching of 2 h per day (patch 2H), patch 6H, patch 12H, patch 2H + near activities (N), patch 2H + distant activities (D), atropine (Atr) daily, Atr weekly, Atr weekly + plano lens over the sound eye (Plano), optical penalization and binocular therapy. The reviewers independently extracted the data according to the PRISMA guidelines; assessed study quality by Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The primary outcome measure was the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) expressed as log MAR lines. Direct comparisons and a Bayesian meta-analysis were performed to synthesize data.ResultsTwenty-three studies with 3279 patients were included. In the network meta-analysis, optical penalization was the least effective of all the treatments for the change of visual acuity, spectacles (mean difference [MD], 2.9 Log MAR lines; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 1.8-4.0), patch 2H (MD, 3.3; 95% CrI, 2.3-4.3), patch 6H (MD, 3.6; 95% CrI, 2.6-4.6), patch 12H (MD, 3.4; 95% CrI, 2.3-4.5), patch 2H + N (MD, 3.7; 95% CrI, 2.5-5.0), patch 2H + D (MD, 3.5; 95% CrI, 2.1-5.0), Atr daily (MD, 3.2; 95% CrI, 2.2-4.3), Atr weekly (MD, 3.2; 95% CrI, 2.2-4.3), Atr weekly + Plano (MD, 3.7; 95% CrI, 2.7-4.7), binocular therapy (MD, 3.1; 95% CrI, 2.0-4.2). The patch 6H and patch 2H + N were better than spectacles ([MD, 0.73; 95% Crl, 0.10-1.40]; [MD, 0.84; 95% CrI, 0.19-1.50]).ConclusionsThe NMA indicated that the efficacy of the most of the examined treatment modalities for amblyopia were comparable, with no significant difference. Further high quality randomized controlled trials are required to determine their efficacy and acceptability.Systematic review registrationCRD42019119843.