Factors affecting healthcare workers’ compliance with social and behavioural infection control measures during emerging infectious disease outbreaks: rapid evidence review

  1. Samantha K Brooks
  2. N Greenberg
  3. Simon Wessely
  4. G J Rubin

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The 2019–2020 outbreak of novel coronavirus has raised concerns about nosocomial transmission. This review’s aim was to explore the existing literature on emerging infectious disease outbreaks to identify factors associated with compliance with infection control measures among healthcare staff.

Methods

A rapid evidence review for primary studies relevant to healthcare workers’ compliance with infection control measures.

Results

Fifty-six papers were reviewed. Staff working in emergency or intensive care settings or with contact with confirmed cases appeared more likely to comply with recommendations. There was some evidence that anxiety and concern about the risk of infection were more associated with compliance, and that monitoring from superiors could improve compliance. Observed non-compliance of colleagues could hinder compliance. Staff identified many barriers to compliance related to personal protective equipment, including availability, perceived difficulty and effectiveness, inconvenience, discomfort and a negative impact on patient care. There were many issues regarding the communication and ease of understanding of infection control guidance.

Conclusion

We recommend provision of training and education tailored for different occupational roles within the healthcare setting, managerial staff ‘leading by example’, ensuring adequate resources for infection control and timely provision of practical evidence-based infection control guidelines.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049857
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.27.20114744: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Five databases were searched from date of inception to May 4th, 2020: MEDLINE®, PsycINFO®, Embase, Global Health, and Web of Science.
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: We are aware that many papers (particularly on SARS and MERS) have been published in other (predominantly Asian) languages, but due to the rapid nature of this review we limited inclusion to English-language papers only. Future reviews should consider translating and analysing the many relevant foreign-language papers. Also due to the rapid nature of the review, quality appraisal of individual papers was not carried out as this is not always deemed necessary when urgent evidence synthesis is required [71].

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.27.20114744 on medRxiv