Encouraging practitioners in infection prevention and control to publish: a cross-sectional survey

Aim: The aim of this cross-sectional survey was to determine the views of infection prevention and control practitioners (IPCPs) on publishing research. Methods: A convenience sample was obtained by approaching delegates at the 2015 Infection Prevention Society conference and data was captured via a hand-held electronic device. Findings: Of the 79 respondents most (83%) read Journal of Infection Prevention (JIP) and found it useful for informing their practice (72%). However, most (91%) had never published in JIP, and less than half (40%) published elsewhere. The main barrier to publication was not having work suitable for publication (38%). Support (37%), training in writing for publication (10%) and time (9%) were considered to be important facilitators in encouraging respondents to publish. Discussion: Strategies that support IPCPs in developing their writing skills may encourage more IPCPs to disseminate evidence to support best practice by publishing their work in peer reviewed journals

A systematic review to evaluate the evidence base for the World Health Organization's adopted hand hygiene technique for reducing the microbial load on the hands of healthcare workers

Background: Effective hand hygiene prevents healthcare-associated infections. This systematic review evaluates the evidence for the World Health Organization's (WHO) technique in reducing the microbial load on the hands of healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: This study was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Protocol 531. Index and free-text terms for technique, HCW, and microbial load were searched in CINAHL, Medline, Web of Science, Mednar, Proquest, and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria were articles in English that evaluated the WHO 6-step hand hygiene technique for healthcare staff. Two reviewers independently performed quality assessment and data extraction. Results: All 7 studies found that the WHO technique reduced bacterial load on HCW hands, but the strongest evidence came from 3 randomized controlled trials, which reported conflicting evidence. One study found no difference in the effectiveness of the WHO 6-step technique compared to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 3-step technique (P =.08); another study found the WHO 6-step technique to be more effective (P =.02); and the third study found that a modified 3-step technique was more effective than the 6-step technique (P =.021). Conclusions: This review provides evidence of the effectiveness of the WHO technique but does not identify the most effective hand hygiene technique. Questions to be addressed by further research are identified. Meanwhile, current practices should continue

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management compared to clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse: protocol for the TOPSY randomised controlled trial

Background Pelvic organ prolapse (or prolapse) is a common condition in women where the pelvic organs (bladder, bowel or womb) descend into the vagina and cause distressing symptoms that adversely affect quality of life. Many women will use a vaginal pessary to treat their prolapse symptoms. Clinic based care usually consists of having a pessary fitted in a primary or secondary care setting, and returning approximately every six months for healthcare professional review and pessary change. However, it is possible that women could remove, clean and re‐insert their pessary themselves; this is called self‐management. This trial aims to assess if self‐management of a vaginal pessary is associated with better quality of life for women with prolapse when compared to clinic based care. Methods This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial in at least 17 UK centres. The intervention group will receive pessary self-management teaching, a self-management information leaflet, a follow up phone call and access to a local telephone number for clinical support. The control group will receive the clinic based pessary care which is standard at their centre. Demographic and medical history data will be collected from both groups at baseline. The primary outcome is condition‐specific quality of life at 18 months’ post-randomisation. Several secondary outcomes will also be assessed using participant-completed questionnaires. Questionnaires will be administered at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months’ post-randomisation. An economic evaluation will be carried out alongside the trial to evaluate cost-effectiveness. A process evaluation will run parallel to the trial, the protocol for which is reported in a companion paper. Discussion The results of the trial will provide robust evidence of the effectiveness of pessary self-management compared to clinic based care in terms of improving women's quality of life, and of its cost-effectiveness.Additional co-authors: Christine Hemming, Aethele Khunda, Helen Mason, Doreen McClurg, John Norrie, Anastasia Karachalia-Sandri, Ranee Thaka

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management versus clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse in women:the TOPSY RCT with process evaluation

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse is common, causes unpleasant symptoms and negatively affects women's quality of life. In the UK, most women with pelvic organ prolapse attend clinics for pessary care.OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management on prolapse-specific quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care; and to assess intervention acceptability and contextual influences on effectiveness, adherence and fidelity.DESIGN: A multicentre, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial with a mixed-methods process evaluation.PARTICIPANTS: Women attending UK NHS outpatient pessary services, aged ≥ 18 years, using a pessary of any type/material (except shelf, Gellhorn or Cube) for at least 2 weeks. Exclusions: women with limited manual dexterity, with cognitive deficit (prohibiting consent or self-management), pregnant or non-English-speaking.INTERVENTION: The self-management intervention involved a 30-minute teaching appointment, an information leaflet, a 2-week follow-up telephone call and a local clinic telephone helpline number. Clinic-based care involved routine appointments determined by centres' usual practice.ALLOCATION: Remote web-based application; minimisation was by age, pessary user type and centre.BLINDING: Participants, those delivering the intervention and researchers were not blinded to group allocation.OUTCOMES: The patient-reported primary outcome (measured using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7) was prolapse-specific quality of life, and the cost-effectiveness outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (a specifically developed health Resource Use Questionnaire was used) at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included self-efficacy and complications. Process evaluation data were collected by interview, audio-recording and checklist. Analysis was by intention to treat.RESULTS: Three hundred and forty women were randomised (self-management, n = 169; clinic-based care, n = 171). At 18 months post randomisation, 291 questionnaires with valid primary outcome data were available (self-management, n = 139; clinic-based care, n = 152). Baseline economic analysis was based on 264 participants (self-management, n = 125; clinic-based care, n = 139) with valid quality of life and resource use data. Self-management was an acceptable intervention. There was no group difference in prolapse-specific quality of life at 18 months (adjusted mean difference -0.03, 95% confidence interval -9.32 to 9.25). There was fidelity to intervention delivery. Self-management was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, with an estimated incremental net benefit of £564.32 and an 80.81% probability of cost-effectiveness. At 18 months, more pessary complications were reported in the clinic-based care group (adjusted mean difference 3.83, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 6.86). There was no group difference in general self-efficacy, but self-managing women were more confident in pessary self-management activities. In both groups, contextual factors impacted on adherence and effectiveness. There were no reported serious unexpected serious adverse reactions. There were 32 serious adverse events (self-management, n = 17; clinic-based care, n = 14), all unrelated to the intervention. Skew in the baseline data for the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, the influence of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the potential effects of crossover and the lack of ethnic diversity in the recruited sample were possible limitations.CONCLUSIONS: Self-management was acceptable and cost-effective, led to fewer complications and did not improve or worsen quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care. Future research is needed to develop a quality-of-life measure that is sensitive to the changes women desire from treatment.STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as ISRCTN62510577.FUNDING: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/82/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 23. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p

Clinical effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management vs clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse (TOPSY): a randomised controlled superiority trial

Background: Prolapse affects 30–40% of women. Those using a pessary for prolapse usually receive care as an outpatient. This trial determined effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management (SM) vs clinic-based care (CBC) in relation to condition-specific quality of life (QoL). Methods: Parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial, recruiting from 16 May 2018 to 7 February 2020, with follow-up to 17 September 2021. Women attending pessary clinics, ≥18 years, using a pessary (except Shelf, Gellhorn or Cube), with pessary retained ≥2 weeks were eligible. Limited manual dexterity; cognitive deficit; pregnancy; or requirement for non-English teaching were exclusions. SM group received a 30-min teaching session; information leaflet; 2-week follow-up call; and telephone support. CBC group received usual routine appointments. The primary clinical outcome was pelvic floor-specific QoL (PFIQ-7), and incremental net monetary benefit for cost-effectiveness, 18 months post-randomisation. Group allocation was by remote web-based application, minimised on age, user type (new/existing) and centre. Participants, intervention deliverers, researchers and the statistician were not blinded. The primary analysis was intention-to-treat based. Trial registration: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN62510577. Findings: The requisite 340 women were randomised (169 SM, 171 CBC) across 21 centres. There was not a statistically significant difference between groups in PFIQ-7 at 18 months (mean SM 32.3 vs CBC 32.5, adjusted mean difference SM-CBC −0.03, 95% CI −9.32 to 9.25). SM was less costly than CBC. The incremental net benefit of SM was £564 (SE £581, 95% CI −£576 to £1704). A lower percentage of pessary complications was reported in the SM group (mean SM 16.7% vs CBC 22.0%, adjusted mean difference −3.83%, 95% CI –6.86% to −0.81%). There was no meaningful difference in general self-efficacy. Self-managing women were more confident in self-management activities. There were no reported suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions, and 31 unrelated serious adverse events (17 SM, 14 CBC). Interpretation: Pessary self-management is cost-effective, does not improve or worsen QoL compared to CBC, and has a lower complication rate.</p

Clinical effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management vs clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse (TOPSY): a randomised controlled superiority trial

Summary Background Prolapse affects 30–40% of women. Those using a pessary for prolapse usually receive care as an outpatient. This trial determined effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management (SM) vs clinic-based care (CBC) in relation to condition-specific quality of life (QoL). Methods Parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial, recruiting from 16 May 2018 to 7 February 2020, with follow-up to 17 September 2021. Women attending pessary clinics, ≥18 years, using a pessary (except Shelf, Gellhorn or Cube), with pessary retained ≥2 weeks were eligible. Limited manual dexterity; cognitive deficit; pregnancy; or requirement for non-English teaching were exclusions. SM group received a 30-min teaching session; information leaflet; 2-week follow-up call; and telephone support. CBC group received usual routine appointments. The primary clinical outcome was pelvic floor-specific QoL (PFIQ-7), and incremental net monetary benefit for cost-effectiveness, 18 months post-randomisation. Group allocation was by remote web-based application, minimised on age, user type (new/existing) and centre. Participants, intervention deliverers, researchers and the statistician were not blinded. The primary analysis was intention-to-treat based. Trial registration: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN62510577. Findings The requisite 340 women were randomised (169 SM, 171 CBC) across 21 centres. There was not a statistically significant difference between groups in PFIQ-7 at 18 months (mean SM 32.3 vs CBC 32.5, adjusted mean difference SM-CBC −0.03, 95% CI −9.32 to 9.25). SM was less costly than CBC. The incremental net benefit of SM was £564 (SE £581, 95% CI −£576 to £1704). A lower percentage of pessary complications was reported in the SM group (mean SM 16.7% vs CBC 22.0%, adjusted mean difference −3.83%, 95% CI –6.86% to −0.81%). There was no meaningful difference in general self-efficacy. Self-managing women were more confident in self-management activities. There were no reported suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions, and 31 unrelated serious adverse events (17 SM, 14 CBC). Interpretation Pessary self-management is cost-effective, does not improve or worsen QoL compared to CBC, and has a lower complication rate. Funding National Institute for Health and Care Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (16/82/01)