Programmes evaluated after teaching infection prevention and control training in health or social care settings: A mapping review
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Objective
To provide an overview of country settings, study designs, pathogens, response stage, outcomes and monitoring periods that were described in studies that may provide evidence about effectiveness of training in infection prevention and control programmes, for health or social care workers.
Methods
A systematic review was undertaken to find and summarise aspects of relevant studies published from 2000-2023. Eligible studies had to have pre and post evaluation or post-intervention evaluation in case of trials only. Eligible outcomes were knowledge; adherence/compliance; skills or practice; incidence; case-related mortality. Eligible infectious diseases were those caused by any single cell biological entity (eg virus or protozoa) where vectors were not the primary transmission pathway. Infection prevention settings had to be health/social care (not community or environmental), and participants had to be health or social care staff or trainee staff. Articles from three bibliographic databases were dual-screened independently and key data were extracted and verified. Findings are summarised quantitatively and narratively.
Findings
Included studies numbered 210, of which 187 were pre-post study design and 23 had concurrent comparator arms. Most studies (n=128) were undertaken in high income country settings, especially in the USA (n=31), and 47 were in European Union member countries. There were 20 studies based in China, and 5 in India. Frequency of phases were preparedness (n=47), readiness (n=29), response (n=146), and recovery (n=4). The most commonly mentioned pathogens were SARS-CoV-2 (n=73) and anti-microbial-resistant organisms (AMROs, n=54). Most settings were health care centres but long-term care facilities (n=13) and healthcare delivered by emergency responders (3) were also mentioned. Dental professionals or students were in just 3 studies and 10 studies had trainee health professionals as participants.
Conclusion
The research questions for which the most evidence is likely to exist about effectiveness of IPC training of health care workers would be in response phase in high income countries, especially if the relevant pathogens were AMROs or SARS-CoV-2. In contrast, the prospects are not good for finding evidence that could deliver confident conclusions about optimal IPC training programmes in low income countries, for most specific diseases (eg. cholera or tuberculosis) or in non-response phases.
