IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0317887.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nurses’ knowledge and its determinants in surgical site infection prevention: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Tesfaye Engdaw Habtie
  • Sefineh Fenta Feleke
  • Aregash Birhan Terefe
  • Addis Wondmagegn Alamaw
  • Melsew Dagne Abate

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess and synthesize the global evidence on the level of nurses’ knowledge and its determinants regarding the prevention of surgical site infections. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following strict methodological guidelines to ensure accuracy and reliability. Adhering to the 2020 PRISMA checklist, a systematic review and meta-analysis sought to establish the pooled proportion of nurse’s knowledge and its determinants regarding surgical site infection prevention globally. MeSH terms and keywords were included in the search. Data extraction, quality assessment, and analysis followed established protocols. Heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed using STATA version 17.0. Results: A total of seventeen observational studies, with sample sizes ranging from 30 to 515 participants, were included in the final analysis in a global context. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the pooled proportion of nurses with good knowledge of surgical site infection prevention is 62% (95% CI: 50–74%) when assessed using a dichotomous scale. However, when knowledge is measured using a three-point Likert scale, the pooled proportion of those with good knowledge drops to 46% (95% CI: 21–72%), with an additional 27% (95% CI: 16–38%) demonstrating fair or moderate knowledge. Conclusion and recommendation: This systematic review and meta-analysis is the first to synthesize data on nurses’ knowledge of surgical site infection (SSI) prevention. The findings reveal poor knowledge levels, highlighting the need for targeted educational interventions globally. While the pooled odds ratio is not statistically significant, training, longer service years, and higher education improve SSI prevention knowledge by enhancing critical thinking, boosting confidence, and fostering adherence to evidence-based practices. Future research should focus on identifying factors influencing nurses’ knowledge, particularly through longitudinal and interventional studies. Policymakers should incorporate international guidelines such as those recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) into nursing curricula, supported by robust assessment tools and educator training, to improve knowledge transfer and implementation of best practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Tesfaye Engdaw Habtie & Sefineh Fenta Feleke & Aregash Birhan Terefe & Addis Wondmagegn Alamaw & Melsew Dagne Abate, 2025. "Nurses’ knowledge and its determinants in surgical site infection prevention: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(1), pages 1-17, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0317887
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0317887
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0317887
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0317887&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0317887?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0317887. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.