IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0302282.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Magnitude of standard precautions practices among healthcare workers in health facilities of Low and Middle Income Countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Mengistu Yilma
  • Girma Taye
  • Workeabeba Abebe

Abstract

Background: Standard precautions are the minimum standard of infection control to prevent transmission of infectious agents, protect healthcare workers, patients, and visitors regardless of infection status. The consistent implementation of standard precautions is highly effective in reducing transmission of pathogens that cause HAIs. Despite their effectiveness, compliance, resources, patient behavior, and time constraints are some of the challenges that can arise when implementing standard precautions. The main objective of this meta-analysis was to show the pooled prevalence of safe standard precaution practices among healthcare workers in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs). Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted for this study. We systematically searched observational study articles from PubMed Central and Google Scholar. We included articles published any year and involving healthcare workers. We used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). The random effect model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence. The meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and publication bias (funnel plot, and Egger’s tests) were conducted. Results: A total of 46 articles were included in this study. The pooled prevalence of standard precautions practices among healthcare workers in LMICs was 53%, with a 95% CI of (47, 59). These studies had a total sample size of 14061 with a minimum sample size of 17 and a maximum sample size of 2086. The majority of the studies (82.6%) were conducted in hospitals only (all kinds), and the remaining 17.4% were conducted in all health facilities, including hospitals. Conclusions: The pooled prevalence of standard precautions practices among healthcare workers in LMICs was suboptimal. The findings of this study can have substantial implication for healthcare practice and policy making by providing robust evidence with synthesized and pooled evidence from multiple studies. Trial registration: Registered on PROSPERO with record ID: CRD42023395129, on the 9th Feb. 2023.

Suggested Citation

  • Mengistu Yilma & Girma Taye & Workeabeba Abebe, 2024. "Magnitude of standard precautions practices among healthcare workers in health facilities of Low and Middle Income Countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(4), pages 1-22, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0302282
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0302282
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0302282&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0302282?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Biniyam Sahiledengle & Yohannes Tekalegn & Demelash Woldeyohannes, 2021. "The critical role of infection prevention overlooked in Ethiopia, only one-half of health-care workers had safe practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-18, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0302282. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.