Alcohol-based hand-disinfection reduced children's absence from Swedish day care centers

Reduction of acute respiratory infections in day-care by non-pharmaceutical interventions: a narrative review

Objective

Children who start in day-care have 2-4 times as many respiratory infections compared to children who are cared for at home, and day-care staff are among the employees with the highest absenteeism. The extensive new knowledge that has been generated in the COVID-19 era should be used in the prevention measures we prioritize. The purpose of this narrative review is to answer the questions: Which respiratory viruses are the most significant in day-care centers and similar indoor environments? What do we know about the transmission route of these viruses? What evidence is there for the effectiveness of different non-pharmaceutical prevention measures?

Design

Literature searches with different terms related to respiratory infections in humans, mitigation strategies, viral transmission mechanisms, and with special focus on day-care, kindergarten or child nurseries, were conducted in PubMed database and Web of Science. Searches with each of the main viruses in combination with transmission, infectivity, and infectious spread were conducted separately supplemented through the references of articles that were retrieved.

Results

Five viruses were found to be responsible for ≈95% of respiratory infections: rhinovirus, (RV), influenza virus (IV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), coronavirus (CoV), and adenovirus (AdV). Novel research, emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggests that most respiratory viruses are primarily transmitted in an airborne manner carried by aerosols (microdroplets).

Conclusion

Since airborne transmission is dominant for the most common respiratory viruses, the most important preventive measures consist of better indoor air quality that reduces viral concentrations and viability by appropriate ventilation strategies. Furthermore, control of the relative humidity and temperature, which ensures optimal respiratory functionality and, together with low resident density (or mask use) and increased time outdoors, can reduce the occurrence of respiratory infections.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low-certainty evidence).  One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.  Hand hygiene compared to control Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta-analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low-certainty evidence), and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low-certainty evidence). We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Evaluating Health Education Module on Hand, Food, and Mouth Diseases Among Preschoolers in Malacca, Malaysia

This study aims to improve parents' perceptions of susceptibility, severity, benefits, and barriers to children's handwashing practice by utilizing the Health Belief Model. In Alor Gajah, Melaka, a parallel cluster-randomized controlled study was conducted over 26 months. Parents who agreed to participate completed pre-test (t0) questionnaires. Data analysis used IBM SPSS version 25. The descriptive analysis described the baseline data pre-intervention. Chi-square and T-test or Mann-Whitney U test for non-parametric analysis assessed baseline data comparability between intervention and control groups. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) analyzed between and within-group comparison of the outcomes, and multivariate analysis determined the effectiveness of the intervention with clustered data. The individual participation rate was 86%. Parents who followed up immediately had higher perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, and perceived barriers (p < 0.001). Each unit increment in parents' practice score was 0.02-unit higher preschool children's hand hygiene practice score (p = 0.045). The intervention effectively improved parents' perceived susceptibility and benefits at immediate follow-up compared to baseline. However, there were no significant intervention effects on parents' perceived severity and barriers and preschool children's handwashing practices. The follow-up time significantly affected each outcome. There were significant covariates as the outcome predictors in this study, besides intervention groups and follow-up time. Parents' knowledge and age of the youngest child were significant predictors of parents' perceived susceptibility, besides parents' knowledge and perceived susceptibility being the predictors of parents' practice score. As a result, parents, teachers, and communities can implement this intervention in other schools with susceptible children.

Child Care Center Hand Hygiene Programs' Cost-Effectiveness in Preventing Respiratory Infections

BACKGROUND

We previously demonstrated that a hand hygiene program, including hand sanitizer and educational measures, for day care center (DCC) staff, children, and parents was more effective than a soap-and-water program, with initial observation, in preventing respiratory infections (RIs) in children attending DCCs. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of these programs in preventing RIs.

METHODS

A cluster, randomized, controlled and open study of 911 children aged 0 to 3 years, attending 24 DCCs in Almeria. Two intervention groups of DCC-families performed educational measures and hand hygiene, one with soap-and-water (SWG) and another with hand sanitizer (HSG). The control group (CG) followed usual hand-washing procedures. RI episodes, including symptoms, treatments, medical contacts, complementary analyses, and DCC absenteeism days, were reported by parents. A Bayesian cost-effectiveness model was developed.

RESULTS

There were 5201 RI episodes registered. The adjusted mean societal costs of RIs per child per study period were CG: €522.25 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 437.10 to 622.46); HSG: €374.53 (95% CI: 314.90 to 443.07); SWG: €494.51 (95% CI: 419.21 to 585.27). The indirect costs constituted between 35.7% to 43.6% of the total costs. Children belonging to the HSG had an average of 1.39 fewer RI episodes than the CG and 0.93 less than the SWG. It represents a saving of societal cost mean per child per study period of €147.72 and €119.15, respectively. The HSG intervention was dominant versus SWG and CG.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand hygiene programs that include hand sanitizer and educational measures for DCC staff, children, and parents are more effective and cost less than a program with soap and water and initial observation in children attending DCCs.

Soap versus sanitiser for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections in the community: a systematic review with meta-analysis and dose-response analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of hand hygiene using alcohol-based hand sanitiser to soap and water for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and to assess the relationship between the dose of hand hygiene and the number of ARI, influenza-like illness (ILI) or influenza events.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and trial registries were searched in April 2020.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared a community-based hand hygiene intervention (soap and water, or sanitiser) with a control, or trials that compared sanitiser with soap and water, and measured outcomes of ARI, ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza or related consequences.

DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts for inclusion and extracted data.

RESULTS

Eighteen trials were included. When meta-analysed, three trials of soap and water versus control found a non-significant increase in ARI events (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.93); six trials of sanitiser versus control found a significant reduction in ARI events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89). When hand hygiene dose was plotted against ARI relative risk, no clear dose-response relationship was observable. Four trials were head-to-head comparisons of sanitiser and soap and water but too heterogeneous to pool: two found a significantly greater reduction in the sanitiser group compared with the soap group and two found no significant difference between the intervention arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Adequately performed hand hygiene, with either soap or sanitiser, reduces the risk of ARI virus transmission; however, direct and indirect evidence suggest sanitiser might be more effective in practice.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL on 1 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 March 2020. We conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis on the newly included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of trials investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. In previous versions of this review we also included observational studies. However, for this update, there were sufficient RCTs to address our study aims.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Three pairs of review authors independently extracted data using a standard template applied in previous versions of this review, but which was revised to reflect our focus on RCTs and cluster-RCTs for this update. We did not contact trialists for missing data due to the urgency in completing the review. We extracted data on adverse events (harms) associated with the interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs in this update, bringing the total number of randomised trials to 67. There were no included studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Six ongoing studies were identified, of which three evaluating masks are being conducted concurrent with the COVID pandemic, and one is completed. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods, but several studies were conducted during the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Thus, studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Compliance with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID-19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). There is uncertainty over the effects of N95/P2 respirators when compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcomes of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; very low-certainty evidence; 3 trials; 7779 participants) and ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). The evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). Restricting the pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies. One ongoing study recruiting 576 people compares N95/P2 respirators with medical surgical masks for healthcare workers during COVID-19. Hand hygiene compared to control Settings included schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. In a comparison of hand hygiene interventions with control (no intervention), there was a 16% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86; 7 trials; 44,129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 10 trials; 32,641 participants; low-certainty evidence) and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials; 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence) suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled all 16 trials (61,372 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. The pooled data showed that hand hygiene may offer a benefit with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. Few trials measured and reported harms. There are two ongoing studies of handwashing interventions in 395 children outside of COVID-19. We identified one RCT on quarantine/physical distancing. Company employees in Japan were asked to stay at home if household members had ILI symptoms. Overall fewer people in the intervention group contracted influenza compared with workers in the control group (2.75% versus 3.18%; hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). However, those who stayed at home with their infected family members were 2.17 times more likely to be infected. We found no RCTs on eye protection, gowns and gloves, or screening at entry ports.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID-19 pandemic. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low-moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Effectiveness of a hand hygiene program to reduce acute gastroenteritis at child care centers: A cluster randomized trial

We aimed to assess the effectiveness of an educational and hand hygiene program in daycare centers (DCCs) and homes on acute gastroenteritis (AGE) incidence in children attending DCCs.

METHODS

A randomized, controlled, and open study of 911 children aged 0-3 years attending 24 DCCs in Almería (Spain) with an 8-month follow-up was employed. Two intervention groups of DCCs families performed educational and hand hygiene measures, 1 with soap and water (soap and water group; n = 274), another with hand sanitizer (hand sanitizer group [HSG]; n = 339), and the control group (CG; n = 298) followed usual handwashing procedures. We compared AGE episode rates with Poisson regression model.

RESULTS

seven hundred fourteen AGE episodes were registered, significant differences between HSG and CG children were found during December and January. A multivariate model was applied and the adjusted incidence rate ratios by rotavirus vaccination found significant differences when children were previously vaccinated, the children in the soap and water group had a higher risk of AGE episodes (incidence rate ratio: 1.28, 95% confidence interval:1.0-1.64), compared with those in the HSG.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that hand hygiene programs that included hand sanitizer were most effective in the winter months. Further, the largest reduction of AGE episodes occurred in the children that followed hand hygiene programs including hand sanitizer and educational measures for DCC staff, parents, and children, and were vaccinated for rotavirus.

Rinse-free hand wash for reducing absenteeism among preschool and school children

BACKGROUND

Illness-related absenteeism is an important problem among preschool and school children for low-, middle- and high- income countries. Appropriate hand hygiene is one commonly investigated and implemented strategy to reduce the spread of illness and subsequently the number of days spent absent. Most hand hygiene strategies involve washing hands with soap and water, however this is associated with a number of factors that act as a barrier to its use, such as requiring running water, and the need to dry hands after cleaning. An alternative method involves washing hands using rinse-free hand wash. This technique has a number of benefits over traditional hand hygiene strategies and may prove to be beneficial in reducing illness-related absenteeism in preschool and school children.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the effectiveness of rinse-free hand washing for reducing absenteeism due to illness in preschool and school children compared to no hand washing, conventional hand washing with soap and water or other hand hygiene strategies. 2. To determine which rinse-free hand washing products are the most effective (if head-to-head comparisons exist), and what effect additional strategies in combination with rinse-free hand washing have on the outcomes of interest.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2020 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, 12 other databases and three clinical trial registries. We also reviewed the reference lists of included studies and made direct contact with lead authors of studies to collect additional information as required. No date or language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status, comparing rinse-free hand wash in any form (hand rub, hand sanitizer, gel, foam etc.) with conventional hand washing using soap and water, other hand hygiene programs (such as education alone), or no intervention. The population of interest was children aged between two and 18 years attending preschool (childcare, day care, kindergarten, etc.) or school (primary, secondary, elementary, etc.). Primary outcomes included child or student absenteeism for any reason, absenteeism due to any illness and adverse skin reactions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Following standard Cochrane methods, two review authors (out of ZM, CT, CL, CS, TB), independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted relevant data. Absences were extracted as the number of student days absent out of total days. This was sometimes reported with the raw numbers and other times as an incidence rate ratio (IRR), which we also extracted. For adverse event data, we calculated effect sizes as risk ratios (RRs) and present these with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for data analysis and followed the GRADE approach to establish certainty in the findings.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 19 studies with 30,747 participants. Most studies were conducted in the USA (eight studies), two were conducted in Spain, and one each in China, Colombia, Finland, France, Kenya, Bangladesh, New Zealand, Sweden, and Thailand. Six studies were conducted in preschools or day-care centres (children aged from birth to < five years), with the remaining 13 conducted in elementary or primary schools (children aged five to 14 years). The included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias in several domains, most-notably across the domains of performance and detection bias due to the difficulty to blind those delivering the intervention or those assessing the outcome. Additionally, every outcome of interest was graded as low or very low certainty of evidence, primarily due to high risk of bias, as well as imprecision of the effect estimates and inconsistency between pooled data. For the outcome of absenteeism for any reason, the pooled estimate for rinse-free hand washing was an IRR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.01; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), which indicates there may be little to no difference between groups. For absenteeism for any illness, the pooled IRR was 0.82 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.97; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence), which indicates that rinse-free hand washing may reduce absenteeism (13 days absent per 1000) compared to those in the 'no rinse-free' group (16 days absent per 1000). For the outcome of absenteeism for acute respiratory illness, the pooled IRR was 0.79 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence), which indicates that rinse-free hand washing may reduce absenteeism (33 days absent per 1000) compared to those in the 'no rinse-free' group (42 days absent per 1000). When evaluating absenteeism for acute gastrointestinal illness, the pooled estimate found an IRR of 0.79 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.85; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence), which indicates rinse-free hand washing may reduce absenteeism (six days absent per 1000) compared to those in the 'no rinse-free' group (eight days absent per 1000). There may be little to no difference between rinse-free hand washing and 'no rinse-free' group regarding adverse skin reactions with a RR of 1.03 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.32; 3 studies, 4365 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Broadly, compliance with the intervention appeared to range from moderate to high compliance (9 studies, 10,749 participants; very-low certainty evidence); narrativley, no authors reported substantial issues with compliance. Overall, most studies that included data on perception reported that teachers and students perceived rinse-free hand wash positively and were willing to continue its use (3 studies, 1229 participants; very-low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review may have identified a small yet potentially beneficial effect of rinse-free hand washing regimes on illness-related absenteeism. However, the certainty of the evidence that contributed to this conclusion was low or very low according to the GRADE approach and is therefore uncertain. Further research is required at all levels of schooling to evaluate rinse-free hand washing regimens in order to provide more conclusive, higher-certainty evidence regarding its impact. When considering the use of a rinse-free hand washing program in a local setting, there needs to be consideration of the current rates of illness-related absenteeism and whether the small beneficial effects seen here will translate into a meaningful reduction across their settings.

Children Attending Day Care Centers are a Year-round Reservoir of Gastrointestinal Viruses

Viral gastroenteritis causes high morbidity worldwide. In this study, stool samples from 179 children aged 0–6 years attending Danish day care centers were investigated for gastrointestinal viruses. Each child was observed for one year with submission of samples and questionnaires every two months. Adenovirus, norovirus, rotavirus, and sapovirus were detected in samples using real-time PCR. A total of 229 (33%) of the 688 samples collected tested positive for at least one virus. At the first sampling point, adenovirus was shed by 6%, norovirus genotype I by 3% and genotype II by 12%, rotavirus A by 9%, and sapovirus by 21% of the 142 children included in the risk factor analyses. Increasing age was identified as a protective factor against testing positive for gastrointestinal virus, whereas nausea during the previous two months was positively associated with testing positive. Odds of shedding adenovirus were 9.6 times higher among children treated with antibiotics within the previous two months than among children who were not. Gastrointestinal viruses were shed year-round and high viral loads were observed in samples from both symptomatic and asymptomatic children, suggesting children in day care as a reservoir and a possible source of spreading of viruses into the community.

Effectiveness of a Hand Hygiene Program at Child Care Centers: A Cluster Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVES

Respiratory infections (RIs) are an important cause of morbidity and excessive antibiotic prescriptions in children attending day care centers (DCCs). We aimed to assess the effectiveness of an educational and hand hygiene program in DCCs and homes in reducing RI incidence and antibiotic prescriptions in children.

METHODS

A cluster, randomized, controlled, and open study of 911 children aged 0 to 3 years attending 24 DCCs in Almería (Spain) with an 8-month follow-up. Two intervention groups of DCC families performed educational and hand hygiene measures, 1 with soap and water (SWG; n = 274), another with hand sanitizer (HSG; n = 339), and the control group (CG; n = 298) followed usual hand-washing procedures. RI episode rates were compared through multilevel Poisson regression models. The percentage of days missed were compared with Poisson exact tests.

RESULTS

There were 5211 RI episodes registered. Children in the HSG had less risk of RI episodes (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-0.88) and antibiotic prescriptions (IRR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.57-0.84) compared with the those in the CG. Children in the SWG had a higher risk of RI episodes (IRR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.06-1.39) and antibiotic prescriptions (IRR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.08-1.56) than those in the HSG. Pupils missed 5186 DCC days because of RIs, and the percentage of days absent was significantly lower in the HSG compared with the CG (P < .001) and the SWG (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Hand hygiene programs that include hand sanitizer and educational measures for DCC staff, children, and parents, reduce absent days, RIs, and antibiotic prescriptions for these infections in children at DCCs.

Illness-related absence among preschool children: Insights from a health intervention in Swedish preschools

We evaluate the effect of a preschool health intervention aimed at reducing infections through improved hygiene practices and training of the staff. The large-scale design enables us to study heterogeneous effects with respect to several child and preschool characteristics that are related to the level of illness-related absence. We find no reduction, on average, in children's illness-related absence. This conclusion holds across different age groups of preschool children, and for preschools with varying levels of absence before the intervention. We find some suggestive evidence that the intervention may have induced effects operating in different directions: while improved hygiene practices may have reduced illness, stricter guidelines regarding absence during infections seems to have contributed to an increased absence level, resulting in an overall zero effect. Overall, our results suggest that reducing absence through improved hygiene practices is not easily accomplished in a child care setting.

Optimising decision making on illness absenteeism due to fever and common infections within childcare centres: development of a multicomponent intervention and study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background

Evidence has shown that children 0-4 year-old attending childcare are prone to acquire infections compared to children cared for at home, with fever being the most common symptom. Illness absenteeism due to fever and common infections is substantial and mostly driven by unrealistic concerns and negative attitude towards fever of both childcare staff and parents, resulting in illness absenteeism from childcare, work absenteeism among parents and healthcare service use. The objective of this study is to optimise decision making among childcare staff on illness absenteeism due to fever and common infections in childcare. Underlying determinants of behavioural change were targeted by means of a multicomponent intervention.

Methods

A multicomponent intervention was developed to improve decision making, using the stepwise approach of Intervention Mapping, and in close collaboration with stakeholders and experts. The intervention consisted of 1) a two-hour educational session on fever among childcare staff; 2) an online video for childcare staff and parents emphasising key information of the educational session; 3) a decision tool for childcare staff and parents in the format of a traffic light system to estimate the severity of illness and corresponding advices for childcare staff and parents; 4) an information booklet regarding childhood fever, common infections, and self-management strategies for childcare staff and parents.

The multicomponent intervention will be evaluated in a cluster randomised trial with a 12-week follow-up period and absenteeism due to illness (defined as the percentage of childcare days absent due to illness on the total of childcare days during a 12-week period) as primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures are: incidence rate and duration of illness episodes, knowledge, attitude, self-efficacy, and risk perception on fever and common infections of childcare staff and parents, healthcare service use in general and paracetamol use, and work absenteeism of parents.

Discussion

This study aims to develop a multicomponent intervention and to evaluate to what extent illness absenteeism due to fever and common infections can be affected by implementing a multicomponent intervention addressing decision making and underlying determinants among childcare staff and parents of children attending daycare.

Trial registration

NTR6402 (registered on 21-apr-2017).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4602-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Intensified hand-hygiene campaign including soap-and-water wash may prevent acute infections in office workers, as shown by a recognized-exposure -adjusted analysis of a randomized trial

Background

Variable exposure to causative agents of acute respiratory (RTI) or gastrointestinal tract infections (GTI) is a significant confounding factor in the analysis of the efficacy of interventions concerning these infections. We had an exceptional opportunity to reanalyze a previously published dataset from a trial assessing the effect of enhanced hand hygiene on the occurrence of RTI or GTI in adults, after adjustment for reported exposure and other covariates.

Methods

Twenty-one working units (designated clusters) each including at least 50 office employees, totaling 1,270 persons, were randomized into two intervention arms (either using water-and-soap or alcohol-rub in hand cleansing), or in the control arm. Self-reported data was collected through weekly emails and included own symptoms of RTI or GTI, and exposures to other persons with similar symptoms. Differences in the weekly occurrences of RTI and GTI symptoms between the arms were analyzed using multilevel binary regression model with log link with personal and cluster specific random effects, self-reported exposure to homologous disease, randomization triplet, and seasonality as covariates in the Bayesian framework.

Results

Over the 16 months duration of the trial, 297 persons in the soap and water arm, 238 persons in the alcohol-based hand rub arm, and 230 controls sent reports. The arms were similar in age distribution and gender ratios. A temporally-associated reported exposure strongly increased the risk of both types of infection in all trial arms. Persons in the soap-and-water arm reported a significantly – about 24% lower weekly prevalence of GTI than the controls whether they had observed an exposure or not during the preceding week, while for RTI, this intervention reduced the prevalence only during weeks without a reported exposure. Alcohol-rub did not affect the symptom prevalence.

Conclusions

We conclude that while frequent and careful hand washing with soap and water partially protected office-working adults from GTI, the effect on RTI was only marginal in this study. Potential reasons for this difference include partially different transmission routes and a difference in the virus load. In this trial, frequent standardized hand rubbing with ethanol-based disinfectant did not reduce the weekly prevalence of either type of infections.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00821509, 12 March 2009.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-016-2157-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Childhood diarrhoea in Danish day care centres could be associated with infant colic, low birthweight and antibiotics

AIM

Diarrhoea is very common in children attending day care centres. The aim of this study was to examine certain predisposing risk factors for an association with diarrhoea, including foreign travel, treatment with antibiotics, having household pets, infant colic, bottle feeding, using a pacifier and low birthweight.

METHODS

A dynamic one-year follow-up cohort study comprising 179 children from 36 day care centres was conducted from September 2009 to July 2013 in Copenhagen, Denmark. Questionnaires were sent to the children's parents or legal guardians every two months for a year, requesting information on gastrointestinal symptoms and exposure. A logistic regression was performed to identify the odds ratios of different risk factors for diarrhoea.

RESULTS

The odds ratios for diarrhoea were 1.97 (0.93-4.20) for children with a history of infant colic, 1.91 (0.90-4.04) for low birthweight children and 1.45 (0.74-2.82) for children who had used antibiotics. Having a pet in the household had a possible protective effect towards diarrhoeal events, with an odds ratio of 0.47 (0.20-1.09).

CONCLUSION

A history of infant colic, low birthweight, and to a lesser extent antibiotic use, possibly increased the risk of diarrhoea in Danish children in day care centres.

Effectiveness of hand hygiene interventions in reducing illness absence among children in educational settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to establish the effectiveness of handwashing in reducing absence and/or the spread of respiratory tract (RT) and/or gastrointestinal (GI) infection among school-aged children and/or staff in educational settings.

DESIGN

Randomised-controlled trials (RCTs).

SETTING

Schools and other settings with a formal educational component in any country.

PATIENTS

Children aged 3-11 years, and/or staff working with them.

INTERVENTION

Interventions with a hand hygiene component.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incidence of RT or GI infections or symptoms related to such infections; absenteeism; laboratory results of RT and/or GI infections.

RESULTS

Eighteen cluster RCTs were identified; 13 school-based, 5 in child day care facilities or preschools. Studies were heterogeneous and had significant quality issues including small numbers of clusters and participants and inadequate randomisation. Individual study results suggest interventions may reduce children's absence, RT infection incidence and symptoms, and laboratory confirmed influenza-like illness. Evidence of impact on GI infection or symptoms was equivocal.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies are generally not well executed or reported. Despite updating existing systematic reviews and identifying new studies, evidence of the effect of hand hygiene interventions on infection incidence in educational settings is mostly equivocal but they may decrease RT infection among children. These results update and add to knowledge about this crucial public health issue in key settings with a vulnerable population. More robust, well reported cluster RCTs which learn from existing studies, are required.

Nasal Carriage and Resistance Pattern of Multidrug Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Among Healthy Children in Kashan, Iran

Background:

Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus is a substantial source of human infections. Detection and treatment of nasal carriage in children with methicillin-resistant and multidrug resistant S. aureus (MRSA and MDRSA, respectively) may be an important modality in prevention of infections.

Objectives:

This study determined the prevalence, antibiotic resistance patterns and risk factors for nasal carriage of MDRSA among healthy children.

Patients and Methods:

This cross-sectional study was carried out on 350 one-month to 14-year-old healthy children in Kashan city, Iran. From all health-care centers, four were chosen by simple random sampling. Nasal samples were cultured in blood agar medium for S. aureus and antibiotic susceptibility profile was determined by disc diffusion and E-test. Risk factors for nasal carriage of MDRSA were also determined.

Results:

A total of 92 (26.3%) S. aureus isolates were obtained, of which 33 (35.9%) were MRSA and 27 (29.3%) were MDRSA. Of MRSA strains, 19 (70.4%) were MDRSA. S. aureus isolates showed 52.2% resistance to cephalothin, 33.7% to co-trimoxazole, 26.1% to clindamycin, 26.1% to ciprofloxacin, 4.3% to vancomycin, and 35.9% to oxacillin. The risk factors for nasal carriage of MDRSA were antibiotic usage during the last three months (P = 0.006), family size of more than four members (P = 0.044), and parental smoking (P = 0.045).

Conclusions:

MDRSA was not uncommon among healthy children in Kashan and prevention of its spread in the population is judicious.

Does hygiene intervention at day care centres reduce infectious illnesses in children? An intervention cohort study

BACKGROUND

Day care attendance is a major risk factor for respiratory and gastrointestinal illnesses in preschool children. In this study, we describe the results of a hygiene intervention cohort trial at day care centres (DCCs) on the rates of febrile, respiratory, and gastrointestinal illnesses in preschool children.

METHODS

Thirty DCCs in 2 communities were included. The number of illness episodes was registered for each child every 6 months, as well as potential risk factors. The hygiene intervention was introduced in half of the DCCs and the results analysed using a multivariate mixed effects hierarchical Poisson regression model.

RESULTS

The study lasted 2.5 y, of which the hygiene intervention lasted 1.5 y. Two thousand three hundred and forty-nine children participated, delivering 2832 person-y. Adjusted incidence rate ratios of the illnesses at the intervention and non-intervention DCCs were not significantly different for any of the illnesses. The intervention was not more effective in children less than 3 y of age than in older children and no significant effects were seen with time. Compliance with the hygiene protocol was good as measured by the use of hygiene products and by a survey among the staff at the DCCs.

CONCLUSIONS

The most likely explanation for the lack of effects of the intervention is that the baseline standard of hygiene at the DCCs was probably too high for the intervention to demonstrate significant results, but recall bias cannot be excluded. Even though hygiene is important for minimizing the spread of microbes at DCCs, other risk factors need to be studied.

Appropriate time-interval application of alcohol hand gel on reducing influenza-like illness among preschool children: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

We studied the efficacy of different time-interval applications of alcohol hand gel as a strategy for the prevention of influenza-like illness (ILI) in preschool-age children.

METHODS

We performed a classroom-based cluster randomization at a kindergarten school in Bangkok, Thailand. A total of 1437 children were placed into 3 test groups, based on the frequency of alcohol hand gel use for hand hygiene: only before lunch (q lunch), every 120 minutes (q 120), and every 60 minutes (q 60). The primary outcome was a change in the school absenteeism rate caused by ILI.

RESULTS

The rates of absenteeism from confirmed ILI (sick days/present days) were 0.026 in the q lunch group, 0.025 in the q 120 group, and 0.017 in the q 60 group. Significant reductions in absenteeism rates were seen when comparing the q 60 group with the q 120 group (rate difference, 0.009; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.002 to 0.015; P = .008) and comparing the q 60 group with the q lunch group (rate difference, 0.0096; 95% CI, 0.004-0.016; P = .002). No such differences were detected between the q 120 and q lunch groups (rate difference, 0.001; 95% CI, 0.005-0.007; P = .743).

CONCLUSIONS

The compulsory hourly use of alcohol gel as classroom hand disinfection could significantly reduce the rate of absenteeism from ILI in preschool-age children.

Molecular epidemiology and nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant S. aureus among young children attending day care centers and kindergartens in Hong Kong

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the prevalence and molecular epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) nasal carriage in children.

METHODS

We collected nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs from 2211 children aged 2-5 years attending 79 day care centers (DCCs) and 113 kindergartens (KGs) in all 18 geographical districts in Hong Kong.

RESULTS

The overall carriage rates of S. aureus and MRSA were 27.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.8-28.5%) and 1.3% (95% CI, 0.8-1.8%), respectively. Molecular typing (staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec [SCCmec], sequence type [ST], clonal cluster [CC]) showed that all the 28 MRSA isolates had SCCmec IV (n = 13) or V (n = 15) including 12 isolates with community-associated-MRSA genotypes (ST59-IV/V, ST30-IV and ST88-V), 10 isolates with healthcare-associated-MRSA genotypes (ST45-IV/V, CC5-IV and ST630-V) and six isolates with novel genotypes (ST10-V and CC1-IV). Spa typing indicated that there was some within and between DCCs/KGs transmission of certain MRSA and methicillin-sensitive S. aureus strains but this was not extensive.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate the potential for DCCs to be a reservoir for emerging MRSA genotypes and highlight the need to enhance education and infection control measures to reduce their cross-transmission in this population.

Hand washing with soap and water together with behavioural recommendations prevents infections in common work environment: an open cluster-randomized trial

Background

Hand hygiene is considered as an important means of infection control. We explored whether guided hand hygiene together with transmission-limiting behaviour reduces infection episodes and lost days of work in a common work environment in an open cluster-randomized 3-arm intervention trial.

Methods

A total of 21 clusters (683 persons) were randomized to implement hand hygiene with soap and water (257 persons), with alcohol-based hand rub (202 persons), or to serve as a control (224 persons). Participants in both intervention arms also received standardized instructions on how to limit the transmission of infections. The intervention period (16 months) included the emergence of the 2009 influenza pandemic and the subsequent national hand hygiene campaign influencing also the control arm.

Results

In the total follow-up period there was a 6.7% reduction of infection episodes in the soap-and water arm (p = 0.04). Before the onset of the anti-pandemic campaign, a statistically significant (p = 0.002) difference in the mean occurrence of infection episodes was observed between the control (6.0 per year) and the soap-and-water arm (5.0 per year) but not between the control and the alcohol-rub arm (5.6 per year). Neither intervention had a decreasing effect on absence from work.

Conclusions

We conclude that intensified hand hygiene using water and soap together with behavioural recommendations can reduce the occurrence of self-reported acute illnesses in common work environment. Surprisingly, the occurrence of reported sick leaves also increased in the soap-and water-arm.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00981877

Source of funding

The Finnish Work Environment Fund and the National Institute for Health and Welfare.

Nasal carriage and antimicrobial susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus in healthy preschool children in Ujjain, India

Background

There is increasing evidence that community acquired S. aureus infections are spreading among healthy children. Nasal colonization with S. aureus plays pivotal role in the increasing prevalence of resistant community acquired S. aureus infections worldwide. A regular surveillance system is important in ensuring quality of patient care. The aim of the study was to assess the prevalence of and the factors associated with nasal carriage of S. aureus and its antibiotic sensitivity pattern among healthy children in Ujjain, India.

Methods

A prospective study was done in paediatric outpatient clinics of R.D. Gardi medical college Ujjain, India. Healthy children from 1 month to 59 months of age were included. Information on previously known risk factors for nasal colonization was collected using a pre-tested questionnaire. Swabs from anterior nares were collected and transported in Amies transport media with charcoal and cultured on 5% sheep blood agar. Antibiotic sensitivity tests were performed using Kirby Bauer's disc diffusion method according to performance standards of Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute guidelines.

Results

Of the 1,562 children from 1-month up-to five years of age included in the study 98 children tested positive for nasal carriage of S. aureus. The prevalence of nasal carriage of S. aureus was 6.3% (95% CI 5.1-7.5) out of which 16.3% (95% CI 8.9-23.8) were methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). The factors associated with nasal carriage were "child attending preschool" (OR 4.26, 95% CI 2.25-8.03; P = 0.007) or "school" (OR 3.02, 95% CI 1.27-7.18; P < 0.001) and "family size more than 10 members" (OR 2.76 95% CI 1.06-7.15; P = 0.03). The sensitivity pattern of isolated S. aureus showed resistance to commonly used oral antibiotics while resistance to glycopeptides was not noted.

Conclusions

We found a relatively low rate of nasal carriage of S. aureus in children below five years when compared to children of older age groups in India. Yet, prevalence of MRSA was relatively high.