Handhygiëne & persoonlijke hygiëne medewerker - Geïncludeerde studies module 1.2

Author, publication year: Price, 2022 [3]

Included studies in the review Study characteristics Patient characteristics Intervention (I) Comparison / control (C) Follow-up Outcome measures and effect size Comments
A. Widmer, 2007
B. Laustsen, 2008
C. Tschudin-Sutter, 2010
D. Chow, 2012
E. Reilly, 2016
F. Pires, 2017
G. Tschudin-Sutter, 2017
H. Sakmen, 2019
I. Tschudin-Sutter, 2019

Type of study:
RCTs, NRTs, before/after studies, case control, cohort studies, observational descriptive studies

Search date:
February 2021

Number of included studies:

A. Switzerland
B. Denmark
C. Switzerland
D. Singapore
E. Scotland
F. Switzerland
G. Switzerland
H. Germany
I. Switzerland

Source of funding:
WHO & Glasgow Caledonian University

Inclusion criteria:
- Referring to WHO 6-step technique
- Focusing on HCWs performing either a hand rubbing or handwashing within any healthcare context

Exclusion criteria:
- Studies in operating theatres using surgical hand preparation protocols
- Studies not in HCWs
- Studies not measuring microbial load

N total at baseline:
A. 180
B. 117
C. 563
D. 120
E. 120
F. 16
G. 32
H. 198
I. 113

Type of HCW:
A. Physicians, nurses
C. Medical students
D. Medical and nursing staff
E. Doctors, nurses
F. Nurses, medical doctors, pharmacists, biologists
G. Medical students
H. Medical students
A. WHO 6-step technique
B. WHO 6-step technique
C. WHO 6-step technique
D. WHO 6-step technique
E. WHO 6-step technique
F. WHO 6-step technique
G. WHO 6-step technique
H. WHO 6-step technique
I. WHO 6-step technique
A. None
B. None
C. None
D. CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) 3-step technique
E. CDC 3-step technique
F. Modified WHO 6-step technique
G. Modified 3-step technique
H. Self-responsible application
I. Modified 3-step technique
N.A. A. Increased antimicrobial effect of the technique (p<0.001) with improvement in application of the technique.
B. Higher reduction in the number of CFUs when technique correctly performed.
C. Highly significant (p<0.001) difference in the density of CFUs before and after WHO handrub technique.
D. No significant difference in hand bacterial load.
E. Greater reduction in CFU/ml with the 6-step technique (p=0.02).
F. The reduction in bacterial concentration was significantly higher with the modified 6-step protocol.
G. Median bacterial counts were lower in the modified 3-step technique participants compared to the WHO 6-step technique (p=0.055).
H. No significant differences.
I. No difference between techniques.