Jackson S Musuuza1, Anna Barker2, Caitlyn Ngam2, Lia Vellardita3, Nasia Safdar4. 1. 1Institute of Clinical and Translational Research,University of Wisconsin,Madison,Wisconsin. 2. 2University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health,Madison,Wisconsin. 3. 3Health Sciences Library,University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health,Madison,Wisconsin. 4. 4Department of Medicine,University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health;Department of Infectious Disease,University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics,Madison,Wisconsin.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Compliance with hand hygiene in healthcare workers is fundamental to infection prevention yet remains a challenge to sustain. We examined fidelity reporting in interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance, and we assessed 5 measures of intervention fidelity: (1) adherence, (2) exposure or dose, (3) quality of intervention delivery, (4) participant responsiveness, and (5) program differentiation. DESIGN: Systematic review METHODS: A librarian performed searches of the literature in PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, and Web of Science of material published prior to June 19, 2015. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, and assessment of study quality was conducted for each study reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 100 studies met the inclusion criteria. Only 8 of these 100 studies reported all 5 measures of intervention fidelity. In addition, 39 of 100 (39%) failed to include at least 3 fidelity measures; 20 of 100 (20%) failed to include 4 measures; 17 of 100 (17%) failed to include 2 measures, while 16 of 100 (16%) of the studies failed to include at least 1 measure of fidelity. Participant responsiveness and adherence to the intervention were the most frequently unreported fidelity measures, while quality of the delivery was the most frequently reported measure. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all hand hygiene intervention studies failed to report at least 1 fidelity measurement. To facilitate replication and effective implementation, reporting fidelity should be standard practice when describing results of complex behavioral interventions such as hand hygiene.
OBJECTIVE: Compliance with hand hygiene in healthcare workers is fundamental to infection prevention yet remains a challenge to sustain. We examined fidelity reporting in interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance, and we assessed 5 measures of intervention fidelity: (1) adherence, (2) exposure or dose, (3) quality of intervention delivery, (4) participant responsiveness, and (5) program differentiation. DESIGN: Systematic review METHODS: A librarian performed searches of the literature in PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, and Web of Science of material published prior to June 19, 2015. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, and assessment of study quality was conducted for each study reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 100 studies met the inclusion criteria. Only 8 of these 100 studies reported all 5 measures of intervention fidelity. In addition, 39 of 100 (39%) failed to include at least 3 fidelity measures; 20 of 100 (20%) failed to include 4 measures; 17 of 100 (17%) failed to include 2 measures, while 16 of 100 (16%) of the studies failed to include at least 1 measure of fidelity. Participant responsiveness and adherence to the intervention were the most frequently unreported fidelity measures, while quality of the delivery was the most frequently reported measure. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all hand hygiene intervention studies failed to report at least 1 fidelity measurement. To facilitate replication and effective implementation, reporting fidelity should be standard practice when describing results of complex behavioral interventions such as hand hygiene.
Authors: Hanan Aboumatar; Polly Ristaino; Richard O Davis; Carol B Thompson; Lisa Maragakis; Sara Cosgrove; Beryl Rosenstein; Trish M Perl Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2011-12-19 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: D O Duerink; H Farida; N J D Nagelkerke; H Wahyono; M Keuter; E S Lestari; U Hadi; P J Van den Broek Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 2006-07-05 Impact factor: 3.926
Authors: Eyal Zimlichman; Daniel Henderson; Orly Tamir; Calvin Franz; Peter Song; Cyrus K Yamin; Carol Keohane; Charles R Denham; David W Bates Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013 Dec 9-23 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Marin L Schweizer; Heather Schacht Reisinger; Michael Ohl; Michelle B Formanek; Amy Blevins; Melissa A Ward; Eli N Perencevich Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2013-10-08 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Onno K Helder; Johannes Brug; Caspar W N Looman; Johannes B van Goudoever; René F Kornelisse Journal: Int J Nurs Stud Date: 2010-04-09 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: Igal Nevo; Maureen Fitzpatrick; Ruth-Everett Thomas; Paul A Gluck; Joshua D Lenchus; Kristopher L Arheart; David J Birnbach Journal: Simul Healthc Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 1.929
Authors: Kaitlin F Mitchell; Erin McElvania; Meghan A Wallace; Lauren E Droske; Amy E Robertson; Lars F Westblade; C A Burnham Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Tieba Millogo; Marie Laurette Agbre-Yace; Raissa K Kourouma; W Maurice E Yaméogo; Akoua Tano-Kamelan; Fatou Bintou Sissoko; Aminata Soltié Koné-Coulibaly; Anna Thorson; Seni Kouanda Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-06-07 Impact factor: 2.692