卫生保健人员隔离预防知识评估工具的系统评价

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
JaHyun Kang, Ki Rog Lee, Im Young Choi, Daehee Lee, Hayoung Chang, Mijung Kim
{"title":"卫生保健人员隔离预防知识评估工具的系统评价","authors":"JaHyun Kang, Ki Rog Lee, Im Young Choi, Daehee Lee, Hayoung Chang, Mijung Kim","doi":"10.1016/j.ajic.2025.09.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Healthcare personnel (HCP) knowledge of isolation precautions (IPs) is essential for preventing healthcare-associated infections. HCP adherence to IP guidelines remains suboptimal worldwide, often due to knowledge gaps. Post-COVID-19 challenges highlight the need for standardized tools. This study systematically reviews IP knowledge instruments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following PRISMA guidelines, five databases were searched for studies published between 2007 and 2024. Eligible studies used instruments with more than 10 items covering CDC-recommended domains. Instruments were evaluated for content coverage, psychometric properties, and methodological quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. All instruments assessed standard precautions, while transmission-based precautions and fundamental elements were underrepresented. A total of 608 items were identified, most focusing on personal protective equipment and hand hygiene. Response formats and scoring systems varied widely, with inconsistent benchmarks. Knowledge of transmission-based precautions was consistently lower than standard precautions. Only 14 studies (51.9%) reported both validity and reliability, indicating limited psychometric rigor. Few studies were high quality, though those published after 2020 showed modest improvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current HCP IP knowledge instruments show significant variation, incomplete scope, and limited validation. Standardized tools with balanced coverage and stronger psychometric evaluation are needed to support education, enable comparability, and guide interventions in diverse healthcare settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":7621,"journal":{"name":"American journal of infection control","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Systematic Review of Knowledge Assessment Instruments for Isolation Precautions Among Healthcare Personnel.\",\"authors\":\"JaHyun Kang, Ki Rog Lee, Im Young Choi, Daehee Lee, Hayoung Chang, Mijung Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajic.2025.09.010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Healthcare personnel (HCP) knowledge of isolation precautions (IPs) is essential for preventing healthcare-associated infections. HCP adherence to IP guidelines remains suboptimal worldwide, often due to knowledge gaps. Post-COVID-19 challenges highlight the need for standardized tools. This study systematically reviews IP knowledge instruments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following PRISMA guidelines, five databases were searched for studies published between 2007 and 2024. Eligible studies used instruments with more than 10 items covering CDC-recommended domains. Instruments were evaluated for content coverage, psychometric properties, and methodological quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. All instruments assessed standard precautions, while transmission-based precautions and fundamental elements were underrepresented. A total of 608 items were identified, most focusing on personal protective equipment and hand hygiene. Response formats and scoring systems varied widely, with inconsistent benchmarks. Knowledge of transmission-based precautions was consistently lower than standard precautions. Only 14 studies (51.9%) reported both validity and reliability, indicating limited psychometric rigor. Few studies were high quality, though those published after 2020 showed modest improvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current HCP IP knowledge instruments show significant variation, incomplete scope, and limited validation. Standardized tools with balanced coverage and stronger psychometric evaluation are needed to support education, enable comparability, and guide interventions in diverse healthcare settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7621,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of infection control\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of infection control\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2025.09.010\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of infection control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2025.09.010","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:卫生保健人员(HCP)隔离预防知识(ip)对于预防卫生保健相关感染至关重要。在世界范围内,HCP对知识产权指南的遵守仍然不是最佳的,这通常是由于知识差距造成的。covid -19后的挑战凸显了对标准化工具的需求。本研究系统回顾了知识产权知识工具。方法:按照PRISMA指南,检索2007年至2024年间发表的5个数据库。符合条件的研究使用了涵盖cdc推荐领域的10多个项目的仪器。评估了工具的内容覆盖率、心理测量特性和方法质量。结果:27项研究符合纳入标准。所有工具都评估了标准预防措施,而基于传播的预防措施和基本要素的代表性不足。总共确定了608个项目,主要集中在个人防护装备和手卫生方面。回应格式和评分系统差异很大,基准也不一致。对基于传播的预防措施的了解始终低于标准预防措施。只有14项研究(51.9%)报告了效度和信度,表明心理测量的严谨性有限。很少有高质量的研究,尽管在2020年之后发表的研究显示出适度的改善。结论:目前的HCP知识产权工具存在显著差异,范围不完整,验证有限。需要具有平衡覆盖范围和更强心理测量评估的标准化工具来支持教育,实现可比性,并指导不同医疗保健环境中的干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Systematic Review of Knowledge Assessment Instruments for Isolation Precautions Among Healthcare Personnel.

Background: Healthcare personnel (HCP) knowledge of isolation precautions (IPs) is essential for preventing healthcare-associated infections. HCP adherence to IP guidelines remains suboptimal worldwide, often due to knowledge gaps. Post-COVID-19 challenges highlight the need for standardized tools. This study systematically reviews IP knowledge instruments.

Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, five databases were searched for studies published between 2007 and 2024. Eligible studies used instruments with more than 10 items covering CDC-recommended domains. Instruments were evaluated for content coverage, psychometric properties, and methodological quality.

Results: Twenty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. All instruments assessed standard precautions, while transmission-based precautions and fundamental elements were underrepresented. A total of 608 items were identified, most focusing on personal protective equipment and hand hygiene. Response formats and scoring systems varied widely, with inconsistent benchmarks. Knowledge of transmission-based precautions was consistently lower than standard precautions. Only 14 studies (51.9%) reported both validity and reliability, indicating limited psychometric rigor. Few studies were high quality, though those published after 2020 showed modest improvement.

Conclusions: Current HCP IP knowledge instruments show significant variation, incomplete scope, and limited validation. Standardized tools with balanced coverage and stronger psychometric evaluation are needed to support education, enable comparability, and guide interventions in diverse healthcare settings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.10%
发文量
479
审稿时长
24 days
期刊介绍: AJIC covers key topics and issues in infection control and epidemiology. Infection control professionals, including physicians, nurses, and epidemiologists, rely on AJIC for peer-reviewed articles covering clinical topics as well as original research. As the official publication of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信