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:Introduction: Oral submucous fibrosis (OSMF) is a chronic premalignant condition and is characterized by fibroblastic change of lamina propria and stiffness of oral mucosa. Though there are several treatment options available, the best agent is not yet identified. This study assessed the comparative efficacy and safety of medical interventions in the management of OSMF. Methods: A systematic review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of interventions for OSMF with each other, or placebo. A network meta-analysis was performed, and the interventions were ranked according to their efficacy based on the surface under the cumulative ranking. (PROSPERO Registration no: CRD42021255094). Results: Thirty-two RCTs comprising 2063 patients were eligible for quantitative analysis. In terms of therapeutic efficacy in the improvement of mouth opening Oxitard, a herbal formulation was ranked as the most efficacious agent, [MD, 10.29 (95%CI 6.34-14.25)] followed by combination therapy of Lycopene with corticosteroids and hyaluronidase [MD, 7.07 (95%CI 1.82-12.31)]. For improvement of burning sensation aloe vera was ranked first [MD, 6.14 (95%CI 4.58-7.70)] followed by corticosteroids with antioxidants [MD, 6.13 (95%CI 4.12-8.14)] and corticosteroids in combination with hyaluronidase with antioxidants [MD, 5.95 (95%CI 3.79-8.11)]. In terms of safety, most of the drugs were reported to cause mild adverse effects only. Significant inconsistencies could be identified in the analysis for both the outcomes assessed and were further explored. Conclusions: Our study highlighted the potential efficacy of several agents over placebo in the improvement of mouth opening and burning sensation in OSMF patients. However, the RCTs lacked methodological soundness. Well-designed studies with a larger number of participants with a rigorous randomization process and stringent methodology are recommended to strengthen the results obtained, which may help to construct a clinical guideline for OSMF management.

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.