Dataset Information

Identifying the priority infection prevention and control gaps contributing to neonatal healthcare-associated infections in low-and middle-income countries: results from a modified Delphi process.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), neonatal healthcare-associated infections (HAI) are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, and costs. When resources are limited, addressing HAI through infection prevention and control (IPC) requires prioritizing interventions to maximize impact. However, little is known about the gaps in LMIC that contribute most to HAI.

Methods

A literature review was conducted to identify the leading IPC gaps contributing to neonatal HAIs in intensive care units and specialty care wards in LMIC. Additionally, a panel of 21 global experts in neonatology and IPC participated in an in-person modified Delphi process to achieve consensus on the relative importance of these gaps as contributors to HAI.

Results

Thirteen IPC gaps were identified and summarized into four main categories: facility policies such as prioritizing a patient safety culture and maintaining facility capacity, general healthcare worker behaviors such as hand hygiene and proper device insertion and maintenance, specialty healthcare worker behaviors such as cleaning and reprocessing of medical equipment, and infrastructural considerations such as adequate medical equipment and hand hygiene supplies.

Conclusions

Through a modified Delphi process, we identified the leading IPC gaps contributing to neonatal HAIs; this information can assist policymakers, public health officials, researchers, and clinicians to prioritize areas for further study or intervention.

SUBMITTER: Yee D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10174223 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Identifying the priority infection prevention and control gaps contributing to neonatal healthcare-associated infections in low-and middle-income countries: results from a modified Delphi process.

Yee Daiva D Osuka Hanako H Weiss Jamine J Kriengkauykiat Jane J Kolwaite Amy A Johnson Julia J Hopman Joost J Coffin Susan S Ram Pavani P Serbanescu Florina F Park Benjamin B

Journal of global health reports 20210101

<h4>Background</h4>In low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), neonatal healthcare-associated infections (HAI) are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, and costs. When resources are limited, addressing HAI through infection prevention and control (IPC) requires prioritizing interventions to maximize impact. However, little is known about the gaps in LMIC that contribute most to HAI.<h4>Methods</h4>A literature review was conducted to identify the leading IPC gaps contri ...[more]

PMID: 37179842

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo develop consensus statements regarding the regional-level or district-level distribution of surgical services in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) and prioritisation of service scale-up.DesignThis work was conducted using a modified Delphi consensus process. Initial statements were developed by the International Standards and Guidelines for Quality Safe Surgery and Anesthesia Working Group of the Global Alliance for Surgical, Obstetric, Trauma and Anesthesia Care (G4 Alliance) and the International Society of Surgery based on previously published literature and clinical expertise. The Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies framework was applied.SettingThe Working Group convened in Suva, Fiji for a meeting hosted by the Ministry of Health and Medical Services to develop the initial statements. Local experts were invited to participate. The modified Delphi process was conducted through an electronically administered anonymised survey.ParticipantsExpert LMIC surgeons were nominated for participation in the modified Delphi process based on criteria developed by the Working Group.Primary outcome measuresThe consensus panel voted on statements regarding the organisation of surgical services, principles for scale-up and prioritisation of scale-up. Statements reached consensus if there was ≥80% agreement among participants.ResultsFifty-three nominated experts from 27 LMICs voted on 27 statements in two rounds. Ultimately, 26 statements reached consensus and comprise the current recommendations. The statements covered three major themes: which surgical services should be decentralised or regionalised; how the implementation of these services should be prioritised; and principles to guide LMIC governments and international visiting teams in scaling up safe, accessible and affordable surgical care.ConclusionsThese recommendations represent the first step towards the development of international guidelines for the scaling up of surgical services in LMICs. They constitute the best available basis for policymaking, planning and allocation of resources for strengthening surgical systems.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify nurse staffing and patient care outcome literature in published systematic reviews and map out the evidence gaps for low/middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsWe included quantitative systematic reviews on nurse staffing levels and patient care outcomes in regular ward settings published in English. We excluded qualitative reviews or reviews on nursing skill mix. We searched the Cochrane Register of Systematic Reviews, the Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, Medline, Embase and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception until July 2021. We used the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews -2 (AMSTAR-2) criteria for risk of bias assessment and conducted a narrative synthesis.ResultsFrom 843 papers, we included 14 in our final synthesis. There were overlaps in primary studies summarised across reviews, but overall, the reviews summarised 136 unique primary articles. Only 4 out of 14 reviews had data on LMIC publications and only 9 (6.6%) of 136 unique primary articles were conducted in LMICs. Only 8 of 23 patient care outcomes were reported from LMICs. Less research was conducted in contexts with staffing levels that are typical of many LMIC contexts.DiscussionOur umbrella review identified very limited data for nurse staffing and patient care outcomes in LMICs. We also identified data from high-income countries might not be good proxies for LMICs as staffing levels where this research was conducted had comparatively better staffing levels than the few LMIC studies. This highlights a critical need for the conduct of nurse staffing research in LMIC contexts.LimitationsWe included data on systematic reviews that scored low on our risk of bias assessment because we sought to provide a broad description of the research area. We only considered systematic reviews published in English and did not include any qualitative reviews in our synthesis.Prospero registration numberCRD42021286908.

Project description:BackgroundInstitutional research mentorship is a form of mentorship whereby institutions foster mentor-mentee relationships. Research mentorship improves research effectiveness and supports relationships. However, resources are needed in order to institutionalize research mentorship tailored to low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). The aim of this study was to develop a consensus document on institutionalizing research mentorship through a modified Delphi process as part of the practical guide development process.MethodsThis study used a two-round modified Delphi process, which is an iterative, structured approach of consensus decision making. Each participant was asked about a series of items related to research mentorship using Likert scale questions. Agreement for each item was pre-defined as ≥80% of participants rating the item as "agree" or "strongly agree." The items that reached agreement, were then discussed during round two at an in-person conference in Ethiopia. A separate group of individuals only participated virtually. For the final consensus survey, response rates and commenting rates (participants who wrote two or more comments) were compared among conference and non-conference participants.ResultsThe Delphi process led to the inception of three main themes in terms of developing research mentorship: leveraging existing resources, measuring and evaluating institutional mentorship, and encouraging a research mentorship life cycle. During the virtual first round, 59% (36/61) participants who were emailed completed the survey. In the second round, conference participants had a response rate of 79% (11/14) compared to non-conference participants with a response rate of 45% (21/47). Conference participants had a 100% (11/11) commenting rate whereas non-conference participants had a 38% (8/21) commenting rate. This study achieved consensus in both survey rounds for all 35 items on the consensus document.ConclusionsThe data suggest that an in-person conference may increase participant engagement. The consensus developed through a modified Delphi method directly informed a practical guide on institutionalizing research mentorship in LMICs.

Project description:BackgroundGuidelines are critical for facilitating cost-effective COPD care. Development and implementation in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) is challenging. To guide future strategy, an overview of current global COPD guidelines is required.Research questionWe systematically reviewed national COPD guidelines, focusing on worldwide availability and identification of potential development, content, context, and quality gaps that may hamper effective implementation.Study design and methodsScoping review of national COPD management guidelines. We assessed: (1) global guideline coverage; (2) guideline information (authors, target audience, dissemination plans); (3) content (prevention, diagnosis, treatments); (4) ethical, legal, and socio-economic aspects; and (5) compliance with the eight Institute of Medicine (IOM) guideline standards. LMICs guidelines were compared with those from high-income countries (HICs).ResultsOf the 61 national COPD guidelines identified, 30 were from LMICs. Guidelines did not cover 1.93 billion (30.2%) people living in LMICs, whereas only 0.02 billion (1.9%) in HICs were without national guidelines. Compared with HICs, LMIC guidelines targeted fewer health-care professional groups and less often addressed case finding and co-morbidities. More than 90% of all guidelines included smoking cessation advice. Air pollution reduction strategies were less frequently mentioned in both LMICs (47%) and HICs (42%). LMIC guidelines fulfilled on average 3.37 (42%) of IOM standards, compared with 5.29 (66%) in HICs (P < .05). LMICs scored significantly lower compared with HICs regarding conflicts of interest management, updates, articulation of recommendations, and funding transparency (all, P < .05).InterpretationSeveral development, content, context, and quality gaps exist in COPD guidelines from LMICs that may hamper effective implementation. Overall, COPD guidelines in LMICs should be more widely available and should be transparently developed and updated. Guidelines may be further enhanced by better inclusion of local risk factors, case findings, and co-morbidity management, preferably tailored to available financial and staff resources.

Dataset Information

Identifying the priority infection prevention and control gaps contributing to neonatal healthcare-associated infections in low-and middle-income countries: results from a modified Delphi process.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Identifying the priority infection prevention and control gaps contributing to neonatal healthcare-associated infections in low-and middle-income countries: results from a modified Delphi process.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets