A randomized, controlled trial of a multifaceted intervention including alcohol-based hand sanitizer and hand-hygiene education to reduce illness transmission in the home

Transmission of Viruses from Restroom Use: A Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment

Restroom use has been implicated in a number of viral outbreaks. In this study, we apply quantitative microbial risk assessment to quantify the risk of viral transmission by contaminated restroom fomites. We estimate risk from high-touch fomite surfaces (entrance/exit door, toilet seat) for three viruses of interest (SARS-CoV-2, adenovirus, norovirus) through eight exposure scenarios involving differing user behaviors, and the use of hand sanitizer following each scenario. We assessed the impacts of several sequences of fomite contacts in the restroom, reflecting the variability of human behavior, on infection risks for these viruses. Touching of the toilet seat was assumed to model adjustment of the seat (open vs. closed), a common touch point in single-user restrooms (home, small business, hospital). A Monte Carlo simulation was conducted for each exposure scenario (10,000 simulations each). Norovirus resulted in the highest probability of infection for all exposure scenarios with fomite surfaces. Post-restroom automatic-dispensing hand sanitizer use reduced the probability of infection for each virus by up to 99.75%. Handwashing within the restroom, an important risk-reduction intervention, was not found to be as effective as use of a non-touch hand sanitizer dispenser for reducing risk to near or below 1/1,000,000, a commonly used risk threshold for comparison.

Evaluation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in home kitchens and bathrooms: Is there a link between home disinfectant use and antibiotic resistance?

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relationship between home disinfectant use and the prevalence of antibiotic resistance among environmental isolates of human pathogens.

METHODS

Bacteria were cultured from 5 kitchen and 5 bathroom sites using quantitative methods. Antibiotic susceptibility was determined by standard methods. Home disinfectant use was assessed via a questionnaire.

RESULTS

The overall total mean log10 counts (total CFU) for the kitchen and bathroom were 4.31 and 4.88, respectively. Gram-positive bacteria were more common in the bathroom (4.05) than in the kitchen (3.60), while Gram-negative bacilli were more common in the kitchen (4.23) than in the bathroom (3.86). The sink and bath drains were the most contaminated sites with 6.16-log10 of total CFU and 6.6-log10 in the kitchen and bathroom, respectively. Households reported cleaning frequency with a variety of commercial products. Most respondents used antibacterial products (eg, soaps, surface disinfectants) in the home. Antibiotic-resistant pathogens were infrequently isolated in the homes evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to pathogens causing community-acquired clinical infections in the ICARE study, pathogens isolated from households are less likely to demonstrate antibiotic resistance. In addition, no relationship between antibacterial use or frequency of cleaning or disinfection and antibiotic resistance was revealed.

Hand Sanitizer Gels: Classification, Challenges, and the Future of Multipurpose Hand Hygiene Products

Hand hygiene is a crucial measure in the prevention and control of infections, and there is a growing awareness among individuals who are making a conscious effort to maintain hand cleanliness. With the advent of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, the demand for hand hygiene products has also gradually shifted towards those with antimicrobial properties. Among these products, hand sanitizer gels (HSGs) have gained considerable popularity as an efficient method of hand cleaning, due to their rapid drying and sustained antimicrobial efficacy. Concurrently, there has been a growing interest in novel HSGs that offer additional functions such as skin whitening, moisturizing, and anti-inflammatory effects. These novel HSGs effectively address concerns associated with the ingestion of antimicrobial ingredients and demonstrate reduced skin irritation, thereby alleviating hand dermatological issues. This review provides an extensive overview of the application scenarios, classification, and challenges associated with HSGs while emphasizing the emergence of novel components with biological functions, aiming to contribute to the advancement of hand hygiene practices and offer novel insights for the development of novel HSGs with outstanding antimicrobial properties with other multiple biological functions and desirable biosafety profiles.

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.

Risk factors for community-acquired respiratory infections in a non-pandemic context: Secondary analysis of the PRIMIT study

OBJECTIVES

Respiratory tract infection (RTI) incidence varies between people, but little is known about why. The aim of this study is therefore to identify risk factors for acquiring RTIs.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of 16,908 participants in the PRIMIT study, a pre-pandemic randomised trial showing handwashing reduced incidence of RTIs in the community. Data was analysed using multivariable logistic regression analyses of self-reported RTI acquisition.

RESULTS

After controlling for handwashing, RTI in the previous year (1 to 2 RTIs: adjusted OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.13, p<0.001; 3 to 5 RTIs: aOR 3.89, 95% CI 3.49 to 4.33, p<0.001; ≥6 RTIs: OR 5.52, 95% CI 4.37 to 6.97, p<0.001); skin conditions that prevent handwashing (aOR 1.39, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.55, p<0.001); children under 16 years in the household (aOR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12, 1.43, p<0.001); chronic lung condition (aOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.32, p = 0.026); female sex (aOR 1.10, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.18, p = 0.005), and post-secondary education (aOR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.17, p = 0.01) increased the likelihood of RTI. Those over the age of 65 years were less likely to develop an infection (aOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97, p = 0.009). Household crowding and influenza vaccination do not influence RTI acquisition. A post-hoc exploratory analysis found no evidence these subgroups differentially benefited from handwashing.

CONCLUSIONS

Previous RTIs, chronic lung conditions, skin conditions that prevent handwashing, and the presence of household children predispose to RTI acquisition. Further research is needed to understand how host and microbial factors explain the relationship between previous and future RTIs.

Evaluating knowledge, awareness and associated water usage towards hand hygiene practices influenced by the current COVID-19 pandemic in Bangladesh

Hand hygiene is considered as one of the most effective ways for preventing transmissible diseases, especially for preventing virus-borne diseases. The study has been conducted to evaluate changes in knowledge, awareness and practices of hand hygiene due to the outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Bangladesh. The potential factors influencing human behaviours for maintaining hand hygiene have also been explored. Moreover, a probable increase in daily water demand associated with the changed situation has been assessed. An online survey was performed among a total of 367 Bangladeshi residents about their practices of hand hygiene during pre-corona, corona, and of their perceived future practices at post-corona period. It has been observed that a significant percentage (62.1%) of the respondents have received basic hygiene education at any level of their academic education. Nevertheless, their hygiene practices were very poor before the COVID-19 pandemic. The outbreak of the COVID-19 has reinforced their previous knowledge and greatly influenced their behavioural changes towards practicing hand hygiene as per World Health Organization guidelines for preventing the virus outbreak. The changes, however, have created increased water demand. The estimated water usage is found to be 2.68 times (9.15 L/c/d) and 2.52 times (8.59 L/c/d) higher in the corona and post-corona period respectively than that of the pre-corona situation (3.41 L/c/d). The principal component analysis (PCA) elucidated that an individual's practice of hand hygiene was associated with income, level of academic and hygiene education, and the COVID-19 outbreak itself. Moreover, the influence of hygiene education and COVID-19 outbreak affecting the duration of handwashing are found highly significant (p-value < 0.001) from the regression analysis. Raising awareness towards behavioural change of an individual about water usage, improvement of academic curriculum regarding hand hygiene and provision of water pricing are recommended to attain sustainable development goals of the country.

The potential impact of intensified community hand hygiene interventions on respiratory tract infections: a modelling study

Hand hygiene is among the most fundamental and widely used behavioural measures to reduce the person-to-person spread of human pathogens and its effectiveness as a community intervention is supported by evidence from randomized trials. However, a theoretical understanding of the relationship between hand hygiene frequency and change in risk of infection is lacking. Using a simple model-based framework for understanding the determinants of hand hygiene effectiveness in preventing viral respiratory tract infections, we show that a crucial, but overlooked, determinant of the relationship between hand hygiene frequency and risk of infection via indirect transmission is persistence of viable virus on hands. If persistence is short, as has been reported for influenza, hand-washing needs to be performed very frequently or immediately after hand contamination to substantially reduce the probability of infection. When viable virus survival is longer (e.g. in the presence of mucus or for some enveloped viruses) less frequent hand washing can substantially reduce the infection probability. Immediate hand washing after contamination is consistently more effective than at fixed-time intervals. Our study highlights that recommendations on hand hygiene should be tailored to persistence of viable virus on hands and that more detailed empirical investigations are needed to help optimize this key intervention.

Nonpharmaceutical interventions to prevent viral respiratory infection in community settings: an umbrella review

Background

Respiratory viruses pose an important public health threat to most communities. Nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as masks, hand hygiene or physical distancing, among others, are believed to play an important role in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses. In this umbrella review, we summarise the evidence of the effectiveness of NPIs for the prevention of respiratory virus transmission in the community setting.

Observations

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Medline and Cochrane reviews resulted in a total of 24 studies consisting of 11 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 12 systematic reviews without meta-analyses and one standalone meta-analysis. The current evidence from these data suggests that hand hygiene is protective against respiratory viral infection. The use of hand hygiene and facemasks, facemasks alone and physical distancing were interventions with inconsistent evidence. Interventions such as school closures, oral hygiene or nasal saline rinses were shown to be effective in reducing the risk of influenza; however, the evidence is sparse and mostly of low and critically low quality.

Conclusions

Studies on the effectiveness of NPIs for the prevention of respiratory viral transmission in the community vary in study design, quality and reported effectiveness. Evidence for the use of hand hygiene or facemasks is the strongest; therefore, the most reasonable suggestion is to use hand hygiene and facemasks in the community setting.

Evaluation of potentiality of traditional hygienic practices for the mitigation of the 2019-2020 Corona Pandemic

The coronavirus outbreak threatens global well-being, costing thousands of lives and an unstable economy. Traditional hand-washing (HaWa) with clean water and hand-washing sanitizers (HaWaSas) are among WHO recommended practices against the outbreaks. HaWaSa and HaWa lacked proper quality monitoring evaluation that may pose health risks. The current study investigates the potential of traditional hygienic practices adopted to mitigate the 2019-2020 Pandemic. It involved assessing the effectiveness of 15 HaWaSa collected from the Dodoma market. Thirty volunteered participants were subjected to different hygienic practices involving HaWa and HaWaSa. The obtained hand-swabbed samples were subjected to the streak plate technique for inoculation, followed by counting colonies. The results revealed that, among the collected HaWaSa brands, only 33.3% were certified by the Tanzania Bureau of Standards (TBS). In the setting under no hand-wash, each client had a different number of colony counts. HaWa did not eliminate all colonies since water acted as a secondary source while only one sanitizer proved effective. The p-values obtained in either setting were greater than 0.05, indicating that each variable was independent. Despite global awareness and fighting against the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) outbreak, quality monitoring of all diagnostic tools, preventive HaWaSa, and related drugs should be prioritized for human safeguard.

Interventions promoting uptake of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) technologies in low- and middle-income countries: An evidence and gap map of effectiveness studies

Background

Lack of access to and use of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) cause 1.6 million deaths every year, of which 1.2 million are due to gastrointestinal illnesses like diarrhoea and acute respiratory infections like pneumonia. Poor WASH access and use also diminish nutrition and educational attainment, and cause danger and stress for vulnerable populations, especially for women and girls. The hardest hit regions are sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 calls for the end of open defecation, and universal access to safely managed water and sanitation facilities, and basic hand hygiene, by 2030. WASH access and use also underpin progress in other areas such as SDG1 poverty targets, SDG3 health and SDG4 education targets. Meeting the SDG equity agenda to "leave none behind" will require WASH providers prioritise the hardest to reach including those living remotely and people who are disadvantaged.

Objectives

Decision makers need access to high-quality evidence on what works in WASH promotion in different contexts, and for different groups of people, to reach the most disadvantaged populations and thereby achieve universal targets. The WASH evidence map is envisioned as a tool for commissioners and researchers to identify existing studies to fill synthesis gaps, as well as helping to prioritise new studies where there are gaps in knowledge. It also supports policymakers and practitioners to navigate the evidence base, including presenting critically appraised findings from existing systematic reviews.

Methods

This evidence map presents impact evaluations and systematic reviews from the WASH sector, organised according to the types of intervention mechanisms, WASH technologies promoted, and outcomes measured. It is based on a framework of intervention mechanisms (e.g., behaviour change triggering or microloans) and outcomes along the causal pathway, specifically behavioural outcomes (e.g., handwashing and food hygiene practices), ill-health outcomes (e.g., diarrhoeal morbidity and mortality), nutrition and socioeconomic outcomes (e.g., school absenteeism and household income). The map also provides filters to examine the evidence for a particular WASH technology (e.g., latrines), place of use (e.g., home, school or health facility), location (e.g., global region, country, rural and urban) and group (e.g., people living with disability). Systematic searches for published and unpublished literature and trial registries were conducted of studies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Searches were conducted in March 2018, and searches for completed trials were done in May 2020. Coding of information for the map was done by two authors working independently. Impact evaluations were critically appraised according to methods of conduct and reporting. Systematic reviews were critically appraised using a new approach to assess theory-based, mixed-methods evidence synthesis.

Results

There has been an enormous growth in impact evaluations and systematic reviews of WASH interventions since the International Year of Sanitation, 2008. There are now at least 367 completed or ongoing rigorous impact evaluations in LMICs, nearly three-quarters of which have been conducted since 2008, plus 43 systematic reviews. Studies have been done in 83 LMICs, with a high concentration in Bangladesh, India, and Kenya. WASH sector programming has increasingly shifted in focus from what technology to supply (e.g., a handwashing station or child's potty), to the best way in which to do so to promote demand. Research also covers a broader set of intervention mechanisms. For example, there has been increased interest in behaviour change communication using psychosocial "triggering", such as social marketing and community-led total sanitation. These studies report primarily on behavioural outcomes. With the advent of large-scale funding, in particular by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, there has been a substantial increase in the number of studies on sanitation technologies, particularly latrines. Sustaining behaviour is fundamental for sustaining health and other quality of life improvements. However, few studies have been done of intervention mechanisms for, or measuring outcomes on sustained adoption of latrines to stop open defaecation. There has also been some increase in the number of studies looking at outcomes and interventions that disproportionately affect women and girls, who quite literally carry most of the burden of poor water and sanitation access. However, most studies do not report sex disaggregated outcomes, let alone integrate gender analysis into their framework. Other vulnerable populations are even less addressed; no studies eligible for inclusion in the map were done of interventions targeting, or reporting on outcomes for, people living with disabilities. We were only able to find a single controlled evaluation of WASH interventions in a health care facility, in spite of the importance of WASH in health facilities in global policy debates. The quality of impact evaluations has improved, such as the use of controlled designs as standard, attention to addressing reporting biases, and adequate cluster sample size. However, there remain important concerns about quality of reporting. The quality and usefulness of systematic reviews for policy is also improving, which draw clearer distinctions between intervention mechanisms and synthesise the evidence on outcomes along the causal pathway. Adopting mixed-methods approaches also provides information for programmes on barriers and enablers affecting implementation.

Conclusion

Ensuring everyone has access to appropriate water, sanitation, and hygiene facilities is one of the most fundamental of challenges for poverty elimination. Researchers and funders need to consider carefully where there is the need for new primary evidence, and new syntheses of that evidence. This study suggests the following priority areas:Impact evaluations incorporating understudied outcomes, such as sustainability and slippage, of WASH provision in understudied places of use, such as health care facilities, and of interventions targeting, or presenting disaggregated data for, vulnerable populations, particularly over the life-course and for people living with a disability;Improved reporting in impact evaluations, including presentation of participant flow diagrams; andSynthesis studies and updates in areas with sufficient existing and planned impact evaluations, such as for diarrhoea mortality, ARIs, WASH in schools and decentralisation. These studies will preferably be conducted as mixed-methods systematic reviews that are able to answer questions about programme targeting, implementation, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and compare alternative intervention mechanisms to achieve and sustain outcomes in particular contexts, preferably using network meta-analysis.

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.

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.

Nonpharmacological interventions to reduce respiratory viral transmission: an evidence-based review with recommendations

BACKGROUND

Viral respiratory infections are a leading cause of worldwide mortality and exert the potential to cause global socioeconomic crises. However, inexpensive, efficacious, and rapidly deployable strategies to reduce viral transmission are increasingly important in the setting of an ongoing pandemic, though not entirely understood. This article provides a comprehensive review of commonly employed nonpharmacological interventions to interrupt viral spread and provides evidence-based recommendations for their use.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic review of three databases was performed. Studies with defined endpoints of subjects receiving one of five interventions (nasal washing, gargling, personal protective equipment (PPE), social distancing, and hand hygiene) were included. An evidence-based review of the highest level of evidence, with recommendations, was created in accordance with a previously described, rigorous, iterative process.

RESULTS

Fifty-four primary studies were included. The most commonly studied intervention was hand hygiene, followed by PPE, gargling, saline nasal washing, and social distancing.

CONCLUSIONS

Mask use and hand hygiene are strong recommendations for prevention of viral transmission. Donning gloves, gowns, and eye protection are a recommendation in healthcare settings. Saline nasal washing and gargling are options in selected populations. Although an aggregate level of evidence is not provided, the authors recommend social distancing.

Hydrogels in Hand Sanitizers

Hand hygiene can be considered a strategic key useful in the containment of infections such as COVID-19 both at home and in communities because it can dramatically reduce the widespread outbreak of infections. In case of the unavailability of soap and water, "instant" hand sanitizers are recommended because their application can be considered easy, versatile, quick and often less aggressive for the skin. For these reasons, alcoholic and alcohol-free hand rub gels can be considered the best performing formulations on the market. Together with disinfectants and antiseptic agents, hydrogels play a fundamental role in obtaining stable formulations and are easy to disperse, with a pleasant skin feel and an overall good performance. Several compounds commonly used in the pharmaceutical, cosmetic and food industry are available for this purpose, in particular, cellulose derivatives and synthetic polymers derivatives. Each of them is available in several grades, presenting different thickening behavior, rheological properties and compatibility with other ingredients, alcohols in particular. For all these reasons, it is important to explore hydrogel properties and behaviors in different contexts (i.e., hydroalcoholic and aqueous media) in order to develop new and performing hand rub gels, always taking into account the different international legal frameworks regarding disinfectant and sanitizing formulations.

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.

Longitudinal, strain-specific Staphylococcus aureus introduction and transmission events in households of children with community-associated meticillin-resistant S aureus skin and soft tissue infection: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Devising effective, targeted approaches to prevent recurrent meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) skin and soft tissue infection requires an understanding of factors driving MRSA acquisition. We comprehensively defined household longitudinal, strain-level S aureus transmission dynamics in households of children with community-associated MRSA skin and soft tissue infection.

METHODS

From 2012-15, otherwise healthy paediatric patients with culture-confirmed, community-onset MRSA infections were recruited for the Household Observation of MRSA in the Environment (HOME) prospective cohort study from hospitals and community practices in metropolitan St Louis (MO, USA). Children with health-care-related risk factors were excluded, as determined by evidence of recent hospital admission, an invasive medical device, or residence in a long-term care facility. Household contacts (individuals sleeping in the home ≥four nights per week) and indoor dogs and cats were also enrolled. A baseline visit took place at the index patient's primary home, followed by four quarterly visits over 12 months. At each visit, interviews were done and serial cultures were collected, to detect S aureus from three anatomic sites of household members, two anatomic sites on dogs and cats, and 21 environmental surfaces. Molecular typing was done by repetitive-sequence PCR to define distinct S aureus strains within each household. Longitudinal, multivariable generalised mixed-effects logistic regression models identified factors associated with S aureus acquisition.

FINDINGS

Across household members, pets, and environmental surfaces, 1267 strain acquisition events were observed. Acquisitions were driven equally by 510 introductions of novel strains into households and 602 transmissions within households, each associated with distinct factors. Frequent handwashing decreased the likelihood of novel strain introduction into the household (odds ratio [OR] 0·86, credible interval [CrI] 0·74-1·01). Transmission recipients were less likely to own their homes (OR 0·77, CrI 0·63-0·94) and were more likely to share bedrooms with strain-colonised individuals (OR 1·33, CrI 1·12-1·58), live in homes with higher environmental S aureus contamination burden (OR 3·97, CrI 1·96-8·20), and report interval skin and soft tissue infection (OR 1·32, CrI 1·07-1·64). Transmission sources were more likely to share bath towels (OR 1·25, CrI 1·01-1·57). Pets were often transmission recipients, but rarely the sole transmission source.

INTERPRETATION

The household environment plays a key role in transmission, a factor associated with skin and soft tissue infection. Future interventions should inclusively target household members and the environment, focusing on straightforward changes in hand hygiene and household sharing behaviours.

FUNDING

National Institutes of Health, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Children's Discovery Institute, Burroughs Wellcome Foundation, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

The effectiveness of alcohol-based gel for hand sanitising in infection control

This article aims to evaluate the evidence relating to the effectiveness of alcohol-based gel for hand sanitising, or 'handrub', in infection control in healthcare settings with particular reference to renal nursing, as this has become pertinent due to the increasing reliance on evidence-based practice. There is a need to implement better infection control strategies and education, to reinforce knowledge among the public, health professionals and those at high risk of infection not only in renal nursing, but also in other areas of practice. Healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) put patients' safety at risk, increase morbidity and mortality, extend the length of hospital admission and increase the cost to the NHS. There is evidence that the prevalence of HCAIs in England can be minimised through the use of different infection control measures. For example, alcohol-based handrub has been found to be associated with minimising the spread of gastrointestinal infections not only in hospital settings, but also in childcare centres. In addition, the UK national guidelines recommend regular handwashing (implementing the right technique) when hands are visibly dirty and hand disinfection with alcohol-based handrub when they are not visibly dirty. This should be before, in between and after different healthcare activities are performed.

Effect of an equipment-behavior change intervention on handwashing behavior among primary school children in Kenya: the Povu Poa school pilot study

BACKGROUND

Handwashing prevalence in schools in Kenya is low due to lack of access to water and soap and lack of drive for handwashing. Soapy water made from detergent powder is an inexpensive alternative to bar soap and disgust and social norms change can be powerful drivers of handwashing, but their effectiveness has not been assessed in school setting. In Kenyan public schools, we evaluated an equipment-behavior change intervention's effect on handwashing outcomes. We also monitored functionality of the Povu Poa prototypes to identify design improvements necessary for continued high usage in institutional settings.

METHODS

The intervention included the "Povu Poa", a new type of handwashing station that dispensed foaming soap and rinse water, combined with school-wide behavior change promotion based on disgust and social norms. In this stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial, we randomly selected 30 schools and divided them into 3 groups of 10. Following baseline data collection, we delivered the intervention sequentially (Group 1: 3-5 weeks after baseline; Group 2: 6-8 weeks; Group 3: 19-24 weeks). We observed outcomes [1] availability of handwashing materials at handwashing places, and; 2) observed handwashing behavior after toilet use among schoolchildren) at baseline and in three follow-up rounds. We compared the outcomes between schools that had received the intervention and schools that had not yet received the intervention.

RESULTS

Water and soap/soapy water were available at 2% of school visits before intervention, and at 42% of school visits after intervention.. Before intervention, we observed handwashing with water after 11% of 461 toilet use events; no one was observed to wash hands with soap/soapy water. After intervention, we observed handwashing after 62% of 383 toilet use events (PR = 5.96, 95% CI = 3.02, 11.76) and handwashing with soap/soapy water after 26% of events (PR incalculable). Foaming soap dispenser caps were cracked in 31% of all observations, but were typically still functional.

CONCLUSIONS

Our combined equipment-behavior intervention increased availability of handwashing materials and improved the compliance with handwashing after using the toilet, but handwashing with soap was still rare. Equipment durability must be improved for deployment in schools at scale. American Economic Association's Registry for Randomized Controlled Trials; Trial Registry Number (TRN): AEARCTR-0000662; Date of Registry: April 14, 2015.

Visibility and transmission: complexities around promoting hand hygiene in young children - a qualitative study

Background

Effective hand hygiene practice can reduce transmission of diseases such as respiratory tract infections (RTIs) and gastrointestinal infections, especially in young children. While hand hygiene has been widely promoted within Australia, primary care providers’ (PCPs) and parents’ understanding of hand hygiene importance, and their views on hand hygiene in reducing transmission of diseases in the community are unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the views of PCPs and parents of young children on their knowledge and practice of hand hygiene in disease transmission.

Methods

Using a cross-sectional qualitative research design, we conducted 30 in-depth interviews with PCPs and five focus groups with parents (n = 50) between June 2014 and July 2015 in Melbourne, Australia. Data were thematically analysed.

Results

Participants agreed that hand hygiene practice was important in reducing disease transmissions. However, barriers such as variations of hand hygiene habits, relating visibility to transmission; concerns around young children being obsessed with washing hands; children already being ‘too clean’ and the need to build their immunity through exposure to dirt; and scepticism that hand hygiene practice was achievable in young children, all hindered participants’ motivation to develop good hand hygiene behaviour in young children.

Conclusion

Despite the established benefits of hand hygiene, sustained efforts are needed to ensure its uptake in routine care. To overcome the barriers identified in this study a multifaceted intervention is needed that includes teaching young children good hand hygiene habits, PCPs prompting parents and young children to practice hand hygiene when coming for an RTI consultation, reassuring parents that effective hand hygiene practice will not lead to abnormal psychological behaviour in their children, and community health promotion education campaigns.

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.

Effect of hand washing and personal hygiene on hand food mouth disease: A community intervention study

There are no specific treatment drugs and vaccine for Hand Foot and Mouth Disease (HFMD). Taking effective preventive measures is particularly important for control of HFMD infection. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of intervention of intensive education on hand hygiene on HFMD.We randomized 64 villages into intervention and control groups in Handan, Hebei province, China. Parents and caregivers of children 6 to 40 months age group in intervention villages received intensive education on hand hygiene. Control group received general education. The intervention period was from April 1 to July 31, 2011 and April 1 to July 31, 2012. We measured and compare the knowledge and incidences of HFMD between 2 groups.We collected 6484 questionnaires, including 3583 in the intervention group [response rate: 96% (3583/3726)] and 2901 in the control group [response rate: 90% (2901/3224)]. We observed that hand washing habit of children and parent, knowledge of HFMD of parents, children's daily cleaning habits scores improved in the intervention group and higher than that in the control group at both the end of year 1 (April 1-July 31, 2011)and year 2 (April 1-July 31, 2012). The incidence of HFMD (2.1%) in intervention group was significantly lower than that in control group (4.2%) at year 2 (χ = 22.138, P <.001). The positive percent of coli-form on the hand swabs in intervention group (2.00%) were significantly lower than that in control group (9.45%) at the end of year 2.The intervention of intensive education on hand hygiene effectively improved the personal hygiene both of children and parents, as well as reduced the incidence of HFMD. We suggested expanding the intervention measures in community to prevent HFMD.

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.

Associations Between Hand Hygiene Education and Self-Reported Hand-Washing Behaviors Among Korean Adults During MERS-CoV Outbreak

BACKGROUND

Hand washing is an effective way to prevent transmission of infectious diseases. Education and promotional materials about hand washing may change individuals' awareness toward hand washing. Infectious disease outbreak may also affect individuals' awareness.

AIMS

Our study aimed to examine associations between hand-washing education and self-reported hand-washing behaviors among Korean adults during the year of the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) outbreak.

METHODS

Data from the 2015 Community Health Survey were used for this study. The total study population comprised 222,599 individuals who were older than 20 years of age. A multiple linear regression model was used to investigate associations between hand hygiene education and self-reported hand-washing behaviors. Subgroup analyses stratified by age, sex, income, and MERS outbreak regions were also performed.

RESULTS

Individuals who received hand-washing education or saw promotional materials related to hand washing had significantly higher scores for self-reported use of soap or sanitizer (β = 0.177, P < .0001) and self-reported frequency of hand washing (β = 0.481, P < .0001) than those who did not have such experiences. The effect of hand-washing education on self-reported behavior change was greater among older adults, women, and lower income earners. The effect of hand hygiene education on self-reported use of soap or sanitizer was similar regardless of whether the participants lived in MERS regions.

CONCLUSION

Our findings emphasize the importance of education or promotions encouraging hand washing, especially for older adults, women, and lower income earners. In addition, MERS outbreak itself affected individuals' awareness of hand-washing behaviors. Well-organized campaigns that consider these factors are needed to prevent infectious diseases.

Predicting and explaining behavioral intention and hand sanitizer use among US Army soldiers

BACKGROUND

Using hand sanitizers can reduce bacterial contamination and is an efficient and inexpensive method of preventing infections. The purpose of this study was to explore the behavioral intention (low and absolute), attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control of hand sanitizer use among US Army soldiers.

METHODS

A questionnaire was developed following an expert panel (N = 5) review and 2 pilot studies (N = 35) to ensure questionnaire validity and clarity. Surveys were distributed among nontrainee soldiers during lunch periods. A total of 201 surveys were collected.

RESULTS

Results indicated that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls explained 64% of the variance in behavioral intention. Attitude remained the strongest predictor of behavior (β = 0.70, P < .01), followed by subjective norms (β = 0.18; P < .01), with significant differences between low and absolute intenders.

CONCLUSIONS

Soldiers with absolute intention to use hand sanitizers hold significantly different behavioral and normative beliefs than low intenders. Other soldiers create negative social pressure about using hand sanitizers, indicating that if other soldiers use hand sanitizers, they will refuse to do so. Intervention to ensure use of hand sanitizer should focus on strengthening behavioral and normative beliefs among low intenders. This should increase the overall well being of the military.

Use of ATP Readings to Predict a Successful Hygiene Intervention in the Workplace to Reduce the Spread of Viruses on Fomites

The purpose of this study was to validate the use of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) for evaluating hygiene intervention effectiveness in reducing viral dissemination in an office environment. The bacterial virus MS-2 was used to evaluate two scenarios, one where the hand of an individual was contaminated and another where a fomite was contaminated. MS-2 was selected as a model because its shape and size are similar to many human pathogenic viruses. Two separate experiments were conducted, one in which the entrance door push plate was inoculated and the other in which the hand of one selected employee was inoculated. In both scenarios, 54 selected surfaces in the office were tested to assess the dissemination of the virus within the office. Associated surface contamination was also measured employing an ATP meter. More than half of the tested hands and surfaces in the office were contaminated with MS-2 within 4 h. Next, an intervention was conducted, and each scenario was repeated. Half of the participating employees were provided hand sanitizer, facial tissues, and disinfecting wipes, and were instructed in their use. A significant (p < 0.05) reduction was observed in the number of surfaces contaminated with virus. This reduction in viral spread was evident from the results of both viral culture and the surface ATP measurements, although there was no direct correlation between ATP measurements with respect to viral concentration. Although ATP does not measure viruses, these results demonstrate that ATP measurements could be useful for evaluating the effectiveness of hygiene interventions aimed at preventing viral spread in the workplace.

Hand Hygiene Program Decreases School Absenteeism Due to Upper Respiratory Infections

BACKGROUND

We assessed the effectiveness of a handwashing program using hand sanitizer to prevent school absenteeism due to upper respiratory infections (URIs).

METHODS

This was a randomized, controlled, and open study on a sample of 1341 children 4-12 years old, attending 5 state schools in Almería (Spain), with an 8-month follow-up. The experimental group (EG) washed their hands with soap and water, together with using hand sanitizer, and the control group followed their usual handwashing procedures. Absenteeism rates due to URIs were compared between the 2 groups through a multivariate Poisson regression analysis. The percent of days missed in both groups were compared with a z test.

RESULTS

Overall, 1271 cases of school absenteeism due to URIs were registered. Schoolchildren from the EG had a 38% lower risk of absenteeism due to URIs, incidence rate ratio: 0.62, 95% confidence interval: 0.55-0.70, and a decrease in absenteeism of 0.45 episodes/child/academic year, p < .001. Pupils missed 2734 school days due to URIs and the percentage of days absent was significantly lower in the EG, p < .001.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of hand sanitizer plus handwashing with soap accompanied by educational support is an effective measure to reduce absenteeism due to URIs.

Fermented Milk Consumption and Common Infections in Children Attending Day-Care Centers: A Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVES

This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial investigated the effect of a fermented milk product containing the Lactobacillus casei National Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures (CNCM) I-1518 strain on respiratory and gastrointestinal common infectious diseases (CIDs) in children attending day-care centers in Russia.

METHODS

Children ages 3 to 6 years received 100 g of a fermented milk product (n = 300) or a control product (n = 299) twice daily for 3 months, followed by a 1-month observation period. The primary outcome was the incidence of CIDs during the product consumption period.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the incidence of CIDs between the groups (N = 98 with fermented milk product vs N = 93 with control product). The overall number of CIDs (and no severe cases at all) in both study groups and in all 12 centers, however, was unexpectedly low resulting in underpowering of the study. No differences were found between the groups in the duration or severity of disease, duration of sick leave from day-care centers, parental missed working days, or in quality-of-life dimensions on the PedsQL questionnaire (P > 0.05).There was, however, a significantly lower incidence of the most frequently observed CID, rhinopharyngitis, in children consuming the fermented milk product compared with those consuming the control product (N = 81 vs N = 100, relative risk 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.69-0.96, P = 0.017) when considering the entire study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Although no other significant differences were shown between the fermented milk and control product groups in this study, lower incidence of rhinopharyngitis may indicate a beneficial effect of this fermented milk product.

[Seasonality in asthma: Impact and treatments]

The role of seasons should be taken into account in the management of asthma. The environment varies between seasons and it is well documented that asthma is modulated by environment. Viruses cause asthma exacerbations peak, in winter, in adults while the peak is present in September in children. Allergens are probably a less powerful source of asthma exacerbation than viruses but pollen involvement in spring and summer and dust mites in autumn are indisputable. Air pollutants, present in summer during the hottest periods, are also highly involved in asthma exacerbations. Indoor air pollution, in winter, is also implicated in asthma disease. All these environmental factors are synergistic and increase the risk of asthma exacerbation. Therapies should be adapted to each season depending on environmental factors potentially involved in the asthma disease.

Visitor characteristics and alcohol-based hand sanitizer dispenser locations at the hospital entrance: Effect on visitor use rates

BACKGROUND

Hospital visitors' hand hygiene (HH) is an important aspect of preventing health care-associated infections, but little is known about visitors' use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers (AHS). The study aim was to examine if use of AHS is influenced by visitor characteristics and the location of AHS within the lobby of a large hospital.

METHODS

An observational study was conducted with AHS placed in 3 different locations. The data included visitor characteristics and if AHS were used.

RESULTS

The results suggest that visitors are 5.28 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.68-7.82) more likely to use AHS when dispensers are located in the middle of the lobby with limited landmarks or barriers, 1.35 times more likely to use the AHS in the afternoon compared with the morning, or when they are younger visitors (adjusted odds ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.09-1.97). Individuals in a group are more likely (adjusted odds ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.84) to use AHS.

DISCUSSION

In addition to location, time of day, and age, there is a group effect that results in visitors being more likely to use AHS when in a group. The increased use related to groups may serve as a mechanism to encourage visitor HH.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest future research opportunities to investigate the effect of group dynamics and social pressure on visitor AHS use and to identify strategies for improving visitor HH.

Protective Effect of Hand-Washing and Good Hygienic Habits Against Seasonal Influenza: A Case-Control Study

Previous observational studies have reported protective effects of hand-washing in reducing upper respiratory infections, little is known about the associations between hand-washing and good hygienic habits and seasonal influenza infection. We conducted a case-control study to test whether the risk of influenza transmission associated with self-reported hand-washing and unhealthy hygienic habits among residents in Fujian Province, southeastern China.Laboratory confirmed seasonal influenza cases were consecutively included in the study as case-patients (n = 100). For each case, we selected 1 control person matched for age and city of residence. Telephone interview was used to collect information on hand-washing and hygienic habits. The associations were analyzed using conditional logistic regression. Compared with the poorest hand-washing score of 0 to 3, odds ratios of influenza infection decreased progressively from 0.26 to 0.029 as hand-washing score increased from 4 to the maximum of 9 (P < 0.001). Compared with the poorest hygienic habit score of 0 to 2, odds ratios of influenza infection decreased from 0.10 to 0.015 with improving score of hygienic habits (P < 0.001). Independent protective factors against influenza infection included good hygienic habits, higher hand-washing score, providing soap or hand cleaner beside the hand-washing basin, and receiving influenza vaccine. Regular hand-washing and good hygienic habits were associated with a reduced risk of influenza infection. These findings support the general recommendation for nonpharmaceutical interventions against influenza.

An internet-delivered handwashing intervention to modify influenza-like illness and respiratory infection transmission (PRIMIT): a primary care randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Handwashing to prevent transmission of respiratory tract infections (RTIs) has been widely advocated, especially during the H1N1 pandemic. However, the role of handwashing is debated, and no good randomised evidence exists among adults in non-deprived settings. We aimed to assess whether an internet-delivered intervention to modify handwashing would reduce the number of RTIs among adults and their household members.

METHODS

We recruited individuals sharing a household by mailed invitation through general practices in England. After consent, participants were randomised online by an automated computer-generated random number programme to receive either no access or access to a bespoke automated web-based intervention that maximised handwashing intention, monitored handwashing behaviour, provided tailored feedback, reinforced helpful attitudes and norms, and addressed negative beliefs. We enrolled participants into an additional cohort (randomised to receive intervention or no intervention) to assess whether the baseline questionnaire on handwashing would affect handwashing behaviour. Participants were not masked to intervention allocation, but statistical analysis commands were constructed masked to group. The primary outcome was number of episodes of RTIs in index participants in a modified intention-to-treat population of randomly assigned participants who completed follow-up at 16 weeks. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN75058295.

FINDINGS

Across three winters between Jan 17, 2011, and March 31, 2013, we enrolled 20,066 participants and randomly assigned them to receive intervention (n=10,040) or no intervention (n=10,026). 16,908 (84%) participants were followed up with the 16 week questionnaire (8241 index participants in intervention group and 8667 in control group). After 16 weeks, 4242 individuals (51%) in the intervention group reported one or more episodes of RTI compared with 5135 (59%) in the control group (multivariate risk ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·83-0·89; p<0·0001). The intervention reduced transmission of RTIs (reported within 1 week of another household member) both to and from the index person. We noted a slight increase in minor self-reported skin irritation (231 [4%] of 5429 in intervention group vs 79 [1%] of 6087 in control group) and no reported serious adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

In non-pandemic years, an effective internet intervention designed to increase handwashing could have an important effect in reduction of infection transmission. In view of the heightened concern during a pandemic and the likely role of the internet in access to advice, the intervention also has potential for effective implementation during a pandemic.

FUNDING

Medical Research Council.

Inferring influenza dynamics and control in households

Household-based interventions are the mainstay of public health policy against epidemic respiratory pathogens when vaccination is not available. Although the efficacy of these interventions has traditionally been measured by their ability to reduce the proportion of household contacts who exhibit symptoms [household secondary attack rate (hSAR)], this metric is difficult to interpret and makes only partial use of data collected by modern field studies. Here, we use Bayesian transmission model inference to analyze jointly both symptom reporting and viral shedding data from a three-armed study of influenza interventions. The reduction in hazard of infection in the increased hand hygiene intervention arm was 37.0% [8.3%, 57.8%], whereas the equivalent reduction in the other intervention arm was 27.2% [-0.46%, 52.3%] (increased hand hygiene and face masks). By imputing the presence and timing of unobserved infection, we estimated that only 61.7% [43.1%, 76.9%] of infections met the case criteria and were thus detected by the study design. An assessment of interventions using inferred infections produced more intuitively consistent attack rates when households were stratified by the speed of intervention, compared with the crude hSAR. Compared with adults, children were 2.29 [1.66, 3.23] times as infectious and 3.36 [2.31, 4.82] times as susceptible. The mean generation time was 3.39 d [3.06, 3.70]. Laboratory confirmation of infections by RT-PCR was only able to detect 79.6% [76.5%, 83.0%] of symptomatic infections, even at the peak of shedding. Our results highlight the potential use of robust inference with well-designed mechanistic transmission models to improve the design of intervention studies.

Infection Prevention and Control in Residential Facilities for Pediatric Patients and Their Families

The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) guideline “Infection Prevention and Control in Residential Facilities for Pediatric Patients and Their Families” is the first infection prevention and control (IPC) guideline to address preventing transmission of infectious agents in “home away from home” residential settings, of which the Ronald McDonald Houses (RMHs) serve as a prototype. These types of facilities provide support services, including overnight lodging, for ill and injured children and their families. Food preparation occurs in common areas, and cleaning of rooms or apartments is performed by the occupants during their stay and before departure. Pediatric patients are frequent guests of the family-centered facilities while receiving or recovering from specialized medical therapy. Examples of high-risk populations served in these facilities include families of patients with cancer, recipients of stem cell or solid organ transplants, surgical and/or very-low-birthweight infants who receive care in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), those with cystic fibrosis, and women with high-risk pregnancies awaiting delivery in a nearby medical center. Such facilities are located worldwide and vary in their physical structure and the predominant population served.

Social Marketing Analysis of 2 Years of Hand Hygiene Promotion

Objective.

To assess published hand hygiene behavioral interventions that employed a social marketing framework and to recommend improvements to future interventions.

Methods.

We performed a systematic literature review by searching the PubMed database and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature for published articles about hand hygiene behavioral interventions in healthcare facilities, schools, and community settings. Our analysis included articles that describe multifaceted interventions and evaluated them with predefined social marketing benchmark criteria.

Results.

Of 53 interventions analyzed in this review, 16 (30.2%) employed primary formative audience research, 5 (9.4%) incorporated social or behavioral theories, 27 (50.9%) employed segmentation and targeting of the audience, 44 (83.0%) used components of the “marketing mix,” 3 (5.7%) considered the influence of competing behaviors, 7 (13.2%) cultivated relationships with the target audience, and 15 (28.3%) provided simple behavioral messages. Thirty-five (66.0%) of the interventions demonstrated a significant improvement in performance, but only 21 (39.6%) were considered to have a strong evaluative design. The median duration of the interventions was 8.0 months.

Conclusions.

From a social marketing perspective, the promotion of hand hygiene could be improved in several ways. The effectiveness of social marketing in hand hygiene promotion should be tested in future interventions.

Effect of cleaning and disinfection of toys on infectious diseases and micro-organisms in daycare nurseries

Background

The rising number of children in daycare nurseries increases opportunities for the transmission of infectious diseases. Pathogens may be transmitted directly from child to child via sneezing, coughing and touching, or indirectly via the environment. Toys are among the fomites with the highest pathogen load, but their role in disease transmission is unknown.

Aim

To determine if washing and disinfection of toys can reduce sickness absence and microbial pathogen load in the nursery environment.

Methods

Twelve nurseries (caring for 587 children) were randomized to intervention and control groups. The intervention consisted of washing and disinfection of toys and linen every two weeks for three months by a commercial cleaning company. The extent and causes of sickness absence among the children were recorded in both groups before and after introduction of the intervention. Ten sampling points in each nursery were examined for bacteria and respiratory viruses.

Results

The presence of respiratory virus DNA/RNA was widespread, but very few pathogenic bacteria were found in the environment. The intervention reduced the presence of adenovirus [odds ratio (OR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1–5.0], rhinovirus (OR 5.3, 95% CI 2.3–12.4) and respiratory syncytial virus (OR 4.1, 95% CI 1.5–11.2) compared with the control group, but the intervention had no effect on sickness absence or disease patterns in the nurseries.

Conclusion

Although cleaning and disinfection of toys every two weeks can decrease the microbial load in nurseries, it does not appear to reduce sickness absence among nursery children.

Hygienic conditions in child-care facilities in North Carolina and South Carolina: an integrated microbial and observational study

BACKGROUND

In the United States almost one-quarter (23%) of children younger than age 5 years participate in some form of out-of-home child care; these children are 2.3-3.5 times more likely to contract acute gastrointestinal illness.

METHODS

Observational investigations were done to understand the hygienic conditions and practices of 40 child-care facilities in North Carolina and South Carolina. These data were compared with microbiological indicator data (aerobic plate counts and coliform counts) collected from selected surfaces in each facility. Results from the two data sets were analyzed using nonparametric statistical methods to reveal potential risk factors for enteric disease transmission.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences (P ≤ .05) in surface microbial counts were observed when comparing family child-care homes versus centers and between facilities participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program and those that do not participate. Facilities without written surface cleaning or food preparation policies had statistically significantly higher microbial counts on surfaces.

CONCLUSIONS

Our unique study, which combined observational and microbiological data, provided revealing information about the relationship between hygiene indicators and sanitary practices in child-care facilities in the southeastern United States.

Transmission of acute gastroenteritis and respiratory illness from children to parents

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory illness (ARI) and acute gastroenteritis (AGE) are the most common infections in children; the risk of such illness increases with daycare attendance. We estimated the risk of transmission of ARI and AGE from daycare attendees to their parents and describe measures used by families to prevent that transmission.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of parents and children 12-60 months of age attending childcare centers attended by ≥60 children in the greater Québec City area, Canada. Participants were contacted at home by phone to answer a standardized questionnaire on infections that occurred in children and parents during the winter period.

RESULTS

Overall, 374 households and 608 participants were included. AGE and ARI occurred at an incidence of 8.7 and 19 episodes per 100 child-months, respectively. Transmission to parents occurred about once in every 3 episodes for both types of infections. AGE in parents caused more frequent work absenteeism than ARI (62% vs. 34%, P < 0.005) with slightly longer duration (23% vs. 15% missing ≥2 days). Hand hygiene with soap was the primary household preventive measure. The 2009 pandemic may have positively influenced home hand hygiene practices overall but alcohol-based disinfection was infrequently applied.

CONCLUSIONS

Parental risk and impact of AGE and ARI acquisition from their children are substantial. ARI occur more frequently overall among children, but parental work loss appears greater with AGE transmission. Our findings suggest that preventive practices to reduce the risk of secondary ARI and AGE transmission to parents warrants greater emphasis, evaluation and education.

Effectiveness of a multifactorial handwashing program to reduce school absenteeism due to acute gastroenteritis

BACKGROUND

Acute gastroenteritis (AGE) is one of the most common diseases among children and an important cause of school absenteeism. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a handwashing program using hand sanitizers for the prevention of school absenteeism due to AGE.

METHODS

A randomized, controlled and open study of a sample of 1341 children between 4 and 12 years of age, attending 5 state schools in Almería (Spain), with an 8-month follow up (academic year). The experimental group (EG) washed their hands with soap and water, complementing this with the use of a hand sanitizer, and the control group (CG) followed the usual handwashing procedure. Absenteeism rates due GI were compared between the 2 groups through the multivariate Poisson regression analysis. Percent days absent in both groups were compared with a Z-test.

RESULTS

446 cases of school absenteeism due to AGE were registered. The school children from the EG had a 36% lower risk of absenteeism due to AGE (IRR: 0.64, 95% confidence interval: 0.52-0.78) and a decrease in absenteeism of 0.13 episodes/child/academic year (0.27 of EG vs 0.40 CG/episodes/child/academic year, P < 0.001). Pupils missed 725 school days due to AGE and absent days was significantly lower in the EG (EG: 0.31%, 95% confidence interval: 0.28-0.35 vs. CG: 0.44%, 95% confidence interval: 0.40-0.48, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of hand sanitizer as a complement to handwashing with soap is an efficient measure to reduce absent days and the number of school absenteeism cases due to AGE.

Hand hygiene and risk of influenza virus infections in the community: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Community-based prevention strategies for seasonal and pandemic influenza are essential to minimize their potential threat to public health. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of hand hygiene interventions in reducing influenza transmission in the community and to investigate the possible modifying effects of latitude, temperature and humidity on hand hygiene efficacy. We identified 979 articles in the initial search and 10 randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria. The combination of hand hygiene with facemasks was found to have statistically significant efficacy against laboratory-confirmed influenza while hand hygiene alone did not. Our meta-regression model did not identify statistically significant effects of latitude, temperature or humidity on the efficacy of hand hygiene. Our findings highlight the potential importance of interventions that protect against multiple modes of influenza transmission, and the modest efficacy of hand hygiene suggests that additional measures besides hand hygiene may also be important to control influenza.

Impact of health campaign on hand hygiene with alcohol-based hand rubs in a non-clinical setting

BACKGROUND

Hand hygiene has been acknowledged as the single most important measure to prevent nosocomial infections. Likewise, for non-clinical settings, hand hygiene is recognized as a key element to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, nevertheless poor compliance has been documented. The feasibility of hand hygiene interventions in open-community settings with adults is mostly unclear.

AIM

To investigate the acceptability and feasibility of a health campaign to promote hand hygiene with alcohol-based hand disinfectants at workplaces in a non-clinical setting.

METHODS

The surveys were conducted as part of a prospective, controlled intervention study with volunteers from the administration of the Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-University Greifswald, the municipality of Greifswald and the state of Mecklenburg-West Pomerania. Participants in the intervention group were provided with alcohol-based hand disinfection; the control group was unchanged. Eleven volunteers filled out an initial survey at the beginning of the intervention regarding demographic and health-related questions as well as questions about the type of work, and a survey after completion of the intervention to evaluate the study's impact on the participants' attitudes toward hand hygiene. Participants in the experimental group filled out a monthly questionnaire regarding their compliance with hand hygiene measures, feasibility of hand disinfection and possible side-effects.

FINDINGS

From 850 employees asked to participate, 134 were included in the study, and surveys from 129 participants (intervention: 64 vs control: 65) were accepted for analysis. Overall, datasets of 1230 person-months (79.46% of total possible follow-up surveys) were collected. Return rate and compliance remained high during the study period. Hand disinfection did not lead to skin problems in the majority of person-months. After the intervention, a majority of participants would favour a further use of hand disinfectants.

CONCLUSION

Campaigns that enforce the use of alcohol-based hand disinfectants can have a sustainable effect on the compliance with hand hygiene measures in non-clinical settings. Campaigns have been shown to be feasible and effective in the prevention of transmissible diseases, therefore employers should consider whether hand hygiene campaigns to introduce waterless hand rubs could be included in companies' health programmes.