Hand Hygiene Program Decreases School Absenteeism Due to Upper Respiratory Infections

Contribution of smoking change to 45-year trend in prevalence of chronic bronchitis in Finland

AIMS

Tobacco smoking has been identified as the most important risk factor of chronic bronchitis. The aim of this study was to assess the contribution of smoking to the trends in prevalence of chronic bronchitis among men and women in Finland.

METHODS

For this purpose, we analysed questionnaires included in national FINRISK and FinHealth studies conducted between 1972 and 2017 in 5-year intervals. A total of 26,475 men and 28,684 women aged 30-59 years were included in the analysis. In addition to smoking, age and socioeconomic status were used as risk factors in the logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Smoking in Finland has declined from 51% to 23% in men between 1972 and 2017. In women, it increased from 11% in 1972 to 23% in 2002, with a following decrease to 16% in 2017. The prevalence of chronic bronchitis has generally followed the trend of smoking. The population attributable risk was 60% in men and 49% in women. A decrease in chronic bronchitis was observed in male never-smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking is currently declining in Finland in both men and women. As result, the prevalence of chronic bronchitis is declining and it is approaching baseline independent of smoking. The decrease in never-smokers has yet to be explained.

A cluster-randomised controlled equivalence trial of the Surprise Soap handwashing intervention among older children living in a refugee settlement in Sudan

INTRODUCTION

Increasing handwashing with soap (HWWS) among older children in emergency settings can have a large public health impact, however, evidence on what works is limited. One promising approach is the 'Surprise Soap' intervention in which a novel soap with an embedded toy is delivered to children in a short, participatory household session that includes a glitter game and HWWS practice. Here, we evaluate this intervention against a standard intervention in a complex emergency setting.

METHODS

A cluster-randomised controlled equivalence trial was conducted in Naivasha refugee settlement, Sudan. Blinding was not possible. 203 randomly selected households, with at least one child aged 5-12, were randomised to receive the Surprise Soap intervention (n=101) or a standard intervention comprising a short household session with health messaging and plain soap distribution (n=102). The primary outcome was the proportion of prespecified potential HWWS events observed for children aged 5-12, accompanied by HWWS, at baseline, 4, 12 and 16 weeks post intervention delivery.

RESULTS

200 households were included in the analyses: 101 intervention and 99 control. No difference in intervention effectiveness was observed at any follow-up (4 weeks: adjusted rate ratio (RR) 1.2, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.7; 12 weeks: RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.1; 16 weeks: RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.5). However, we observed increased HWWS in both arms at 4 weeks (27 and 23 percentage point increase in the intervention and control arm, respectively) that was sustained at 16 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

We find that the Surprise Soap intervention is no more effective at increasing older children's HWWS than a standard, household-level, health-based intervention in this complex humanitarian emergency. There appears to be no marginal benefit in terms of HWWS that would justify the additional cost of implementing the Surprise Soap intervention. Further trials that include a passive control arm are needed to determine the independent effects of each intervention and guide future intervention design.

Effect of a novel hygiene intervention on older children's handwashing in a humanitarian setting in Kahda district, Somalia: A cluster-randomised controlled equivalence trial

INTRODUCTION

Improving handwashing with soap (HWWS) among children in humanitarian emergencies has the potential to reduce the transmission of several important infectious diseases. However, there is limited evidence on which approaches are effective in increasing HWWS among children in humanitarian settings. One recent innovation - the "Surprise Soap" intervention - was shown to be successful in a small-scale efficacy trial in a humanitarian setting in Iraq. This intervention includes soap with embedded toys delivered through a short household session comprising a glitter game, instruction of how and when to wash hands, and HWWS practice. Whilst promising, this approach has not been evaluated at programmatic scale in a complex humanitarian setting.

METHODS

We conducted a cluster-randomised controlled equivalence trial of the Surprise Soap intervention in IDP camps in Kahda district, Somalia. Proportionate stratified random sampling was employed to recruit 200 households, with at least one child aged 5-12, across the camps. Eligible households were randomly allocated to receive the Surprise Soap intervention (n = 100) or an active comparator handwashing intervention in which plain soap was delivered in a short household session comprising standard health-based messaging and instruction of how and when to wash hands (n = 100). The primary outcome was the proportion of pre-specified occasions when HWWS was practiced by children aged 5-12 years, measured at baseline, 4-weeks, 12 weeks, and 16 weeks post invention delivery.

RESULTS

HWWS increased in both groups (by 48 percentage points in the intervention group and 51 percentage points in the control group, at the 4-week follow up), however, there was no evidence of a difference in HWWS between the groups at the 4-week (adjusted RR (aRR) = 1.0, 95% CI 0.9-1.1), 12-week (aRR = 1.1, 95% CI 0.9-1.3), or 16-week (aRR = 1.0, 95% CI 0.9-1.2) follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In this complex humanitarian setting, where soap availability and past exposure to handwashing promotion was low, it appears that well-designed, household-level targeted handwashing interventions that include soap provision can increase child HWWS and potentially reduce disease risk, but the Surprise Soap intervention offers no marginal benefit over a standard intervention that would justify the additional costs.

Nongovernmental Organization Practitioners' Perspectives on the Challenges and Solutions to Changing Handwashing Behavior in Older Children: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Increasing handwashing with soap (HWWS) among older children (aged 5-14 years) can achieve a substantial public health impact. However, HWWS interventions targeting older children have had mixed success. Recent research has attempted to quantitatively identify effective intervention techniques; however, success is likely also influenced by the wider context of implementation. We explore nongovernmental organization (NGO) practitioners' perspectives on the challenges and solutions to HWWS interventions targeting older children to enhance understanding of what is required, beyond intervention content, for them to be effective.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews in April-November 2020 with 25 practitioners employed across 11 NGOs and involved in HWWS interventions targeting older children in development and humanitarian settings. We used purposive and snowball sampling to recruit participants in roles at the global, national/regional, and local levels. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed to identify challenges and solutions to HWWS interventions targeting older children. Results were organized according to program development cycle stages.

RESULTS

Twelve themes relating to perceived challenges emerged: (1) lack of prioritization, (2) funding inconsistency, (3) insufficient formative research, (4) demand on resources, (5) unengaging intervention content, (6) non-enabling physical environments, (7) availability of skilled implementers, (8) reaching out-of-school children, (9) community mistrust, (10) lack of coordination, (11) lack of evaluation rigor, and (12) failure to assign older children's HWWS as a primary outcome in evaluations of hygiene interventions. Recommended solutions were at the intervention, organization, and sector levels.

CONCLUSION

Intervention design and delivery are important for the success of HWWS interventions for older children, but contextual factors, such as the availability of human and material resources and the level of coordination within and beyond the NGO sector, should also be considered. NGOs need to prioritize HWWS promotion among older children and support programs accordingly.

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.

Knowledge about Hand Hygiene and Related Infectious Disease Awareness among Primary School Children in Germany

Hand hygiene is a cornerstone of infection prevention. However, few data are available for school children on their knowledge of infectious diseases and their prevention. The aim of the study was to develop and apply a standardized questionnaire for children when visiting primary schools to survey their knowledge about infectious diseases, pathogen transmission and prevention measures. Enrolling thirteen German primary schools, 493 questionnaires for grade three primary school children were included for further analyses, comprising 257 (52.1%) girls and 236 (47.9%) boys with an age range of 8–11 years. Out of 489 children, 91.2% participants indicated that they knew about human-to-human transmissible diseases. Of these, 445 children responded in detail, most frequently mentioning respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases, followed by childhood diseases. Addressing putative hygiene awareness-influencing factors, it was worrisome that more than 40.0% of the children avoided visiting the sanitary facilities at school. Most of the children (82.9%) noted that they did not like to use the sanitary facilities at school because of their uncleanliness and the poor hygienic behavior of their classmates. In conclusion, basic infection awareness exists already in primary school age children. Ideas about the origin and prevention of infections are retrievable, however, this knowledge is not always accurate and adequately contextualized. Since the condition of sanitary facilities has a strong influence on usage behavior, the child’s perspective should be given more consideration in the design and maintenance of sanitary facilities.

Development and pilot evaluation of an educational programme on infection prevention and antibiotics with English and Scottish youth groups, informed by COM-B

BACKGROUND

The UK 5-year antimicrobial resistance (AMR) National Action Plan highlights the need to prevent community infections through education of children. Activities around infection prevention (IP) and antibiotics were piloted by UK youth groups in 2016-2018, prompting Public Health England (PHE) to develop a standardised programme. The aim of the study was to develop and pilot an educational programme on IP and antibiotics for use by community youth groups in the UK.

METHODS

A working group, including youth group volunteers interested in IP and AMR, agreed on the programme content through consensus, informed by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour model (COM-B). The Antibiotic Guardian Youth Badge (AGYB) included learning through interactive e-Bug activities on IP and prudent antibiotic use, action setting through Antibiotic Guardian pledges and consolidation through poster development. The programme was piloted and evaluated with conveniently recruited youth groups in 2019, including quantitative and qualitative questionnaire feedback from community leaders and children.

RESULTS

Fourteen youth group leaders and 232 children from uniformed Girlguiding/Scout groups in England and Scotland participated in the pilot evaluation, as well as two primary schools. Leaders reported alignment to the themes of their youth organisation, but struggled to teach antibiotics and antibiotic resistance. Children reported enjoyment and intentions to improve hygiene behaviour.

CONCLUSION

Community youth groups are a suitable setting for IP and antibiotics education. The AGYB was officially launched in March 2020 and promoted for use with home-schooling children and remote youth group meetings to educate about IP during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Interventions to increase personal protective behaviours to limit the spread of respiratory viruses: A rapid evidence review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Increasing personal protective behaviours is critical for stopping the spread of respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2: We need evidence to inform how to achieve this. We aimed to synthesize evidence on interventions to increase six personal protective behaviours (e.g., hand hygiene, face mask use, maintaining physical distancing) to limit the spread of respiratory viruses.

METHODS

We used best practice for rapid evidence reviews. We searched Ovid MEDLINE and Scopus. Studies conducted in adults or children with active or passive comparators were included. We extracted data on study design, intervention content, mode of delivery, population, setting, mechanism(s) of action, acceptability, practicability, effectiveness, affordability, spill-over effects, and equity impact. Study quality was assessed with Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool. A narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

We identified 39 studies conducted across 15 countries. Interventions targeted hand hygiene (n = 30) and/or face mask use (n = 12) and used two- or three-arm study designs with passive comparators. Interventions were typically delivered face-to-face and included a median of three behaviour change techniques. The quality of included studies was low. Interventions to increase hand hygiene (k = 6) had a medium, positive effect (d = .62, 95% CI = 0.43-0.80, p < .001, I²  = 81.2%). Interventions targeting face mask use (k = 4) had mixed results, with an imprecise pooled estimate (OR = 4.14, 95% CI = 1.24-13.79, p < .001, I²  = 89.67%). Between-study heterogeneity was high.

CONCLUSIONS

We found low-quality evidence for positive effects of interventions targeting hand hygiene, with unclear results for interventions targeting face mask use. There was a lack of evidence for most behaviours of interest within this review.

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 "Hand Hygiene Fun Month" for Kindergarten Children: A Pilot Quasi-Experimental Study

Early childhood is a formative period during which healthy habits are developed, including proper hand hygiene practices. The aim of this quasi-experimental study was to determine the effectiveness of a 4-week series of educational sessions that consider the cognitive developmental stage of children on increasing their knowledge and promoting hand hygiene practices. The intervention group (n = 33) observed the hand hygiene program, whereas another group served as the waitlist control (n = 20). Creative activities were planned for the illustration of hand hygiene concepts in terms of "right moments", "right steps", and "right duration". Hand sanitizer coverage was evaluated using a hand scanner. After the intervention, the experimental group had higher knowledge level toward hand hygiene than the control group (p < 0.001). Significant improvements in hand hygiene performance at the left palm and dorsum (p < 0.05), right palm (p < 0.05), and overall hand coverage (p < 0.05) were observed in the experimental group. The study demonstrated that the knowledge and proper hand hygiene (HH) practice of children can be positively influenced by the use of an age-appropriate education program. The results of this study have implications for school health educators and parents for promoting HH practices among children at home and at the school level.

Use of an automated hand hygiene compliance system by emergency room nurses and technicians is associated with decreased employee absenteeism

Few studies have examined the use of hand hygiene interventions among health care personnel and employee absenteeism. To improve the hand hygiene practices of emergency room nurses and technicians, we implemented mandatory use of an automated hand hygiene compliance system. After implementation, we found reductions in employee absenteeism and the number of overtime hours worked by substitute staff. These unanticipated results demonstrate a return on investment that benefits the health of employees.

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.

Hand Washing in Primary School Students Using "Demonstration, Puzzle, Dance, Song": A Nursing Project Based on Multifaceted Skills Training

BACKGROUND

The effects of an educational strategy, "demonstration, puzzle, dance, song (DPDS)," on the hand washing skills of primary school students was examined.

METHOD

This study used a quasi-experimental, training research format with a pre- and posttest research design and was conducted by a research team from a university department of public health nursing. The study included 671 (90.2%) of 744 students who attended primary schools in Nevsehir, Turkey. Data were collected with a demographic data collection form and a Hand Washing Skills Evaluation List. McNemar, Friedman, and Wilcoxon tests were used to analyze findings.

RESULTS

Immediately after training, all steps of hand washing were performed at higher levels than before training (p < .01), and the difference between hand washing times was significant (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Hand washing skills and times increased after undergoing hand washing training using the DPDS method. [J Contin Educ Nurs. 2020;51(4):158-166.].

The importance of hand hygiene education on primary schoolgirls' absence due to upper respiratory infections in Saudi Arabia. A cluster randomized controlled trial

Objectives:

To quantify the reduction in absence due to upper respiratory infections (URIs) among primary schoolgirls attending Riyadh’s schools after delivering a hand hygiene workshop intervention over a period of 5 weeks.

Methods:

A cluster randomized trial was conducted among girls attending 4 primary schools between January and March 2018. The participants attended a hand hygiene workshop. The schoolgirls’ absences were followed up for 5 weeks. Incidence rate, percentage of absence days, and absence rate were calculated for total and URIs absences.

Result:

Total number of participating schoolgirls was 496. Upper respiratory infections accounted for 15.3% of absence episodes. Schoolgirls lost 521 days of school and 19.4% of them were URIs-related. Absence rate due to URIs were 12.4 and 23.4 as well as 5.62 and 11.72 per 100 schoolgirls in the control (CG) and experimental (EG) groups, respectively. Percentage of absence days were lower in the experimental group (CG: 0.86% and 1.39% versus EG: 0.39% and 0.72%). Incidence rates of absence due to URIs were 0.54 and 1.02 in CG versus 0.24 and 0.51 in EG per 100 schoolgirls per day.

Conclusion:

There could be further reduction in school absences if education was accompanied by hand soap dissemination. The study could serve as a pilot for major studies in the future. Sustainability of the intervention can be tested in studies with longer durations.

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.

The Effect of Therapeutic Clowning on Handwashing Technique and Microbial Colonization in Preschool Children

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the effect of therapeutic clowning on handwashing technique and microbial colonization in preschool children.

DESIGN

This randomized controlled trial was conducted using pre-test and post-test experimental and control groups.

METHODS

The study was conducted between March and June 2016 in two kindergartens in eastern Turkey. The study was completed with a total of 195 students, including 90 students in the experimental group and 105 students in the control group. A questionnaire was used for data collection. This questionnaire included sections about the subjects' descriptive characteristics and the results of the bacterial cultures of their hand swabs. For the collection of these swabs, the subjects were informed in advance, and samples were collected at predetermined times. The swabs were analyzed to determine the bacterial colonization of the subjects' hands. Clowns and video activities were used as intervention tools in the study.

FINDINGS

In the post-test, the microbial growth was ≤10³ in 68.9% and >10³ in 31.1% of the subjects in the experimental group. In contrast, the growth was ≤10³ in 34.3% and >10³ in 65.7% of the control group subjects. The difference in the post-test microbial growths of the two groups was statistically significant (p < .000).

CONCLUSIONS

The hygienic handwashing technique taught in the therapeutic clowning and videos reduced the bacterial colonization on the preschool children's hands by 50%. Moreover, this method was effective in reducing the growth rate of coliform bacteria that indicate undesirable, poor hygiene of the hands.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Considering these results, we recommend that pediatric healthcare professionals use entertaining methods such as those involving clowns to teach and guide children regarding hygienic handwashing techniques.