Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:37:52.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patient Involvement in Healthcare-Associated Infection Research: A Lexical Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2018

Ann Dadich  and
Mary Wyer
Ann Dadich*
Affiliation:
School of Business, Western Sydney University, Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia
Mary Wyer
Affiliation:
Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
*
Address correspondence to Ann Dadich, PhD, School of Business, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South DC NSW, Australia 2751 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This review examines patient involvement in healthcare-associated infection (HAI) research. Healthcare-associated infections represent an intractable issue with considerable implications for patients and staff. Participatory methodologies that involve patients in healthcare research are associated with myriad benefits.

DESIGN

Lexical review.

METHODS

PubMed was searched to identify all publications on patient involvement in HAI research since 2000; publications were also identified from the cited references. A lexical analysis was conducted of the methods sections of 148 publications.

RESULTS

The findings reveal that HAI research that actively involves patients and members of the public is limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient involvement is largely limited to recruitment to HAI studies rather than extended to patient involvement in research design, implementation, analysis, and/or dissemination. As such, there is considerable opportunity to further this important research area via alternative methodologies that award primacy to patient expertise and agency.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:710–717

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 39 , Issue 6 , June 2018 , pp. 710 - 717
Copyright
© 2018 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. World Health Organization. WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009.Google Scholar
2. Seale, H, Novytska, Y, Gallard, J, Kaur, R. Examining hospital patients’ knowledge and attitudes toward hospital-acquired infections and their participation in infection control. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36:461–463.Google Scholar
3. Srigley, JA, Furness, CD, Gardam, M. Interventions to improve patient hand hygiene: a systematic review. J Hosp Infect 2016;94:23–29.Google Scholar
4. Staley, K, Minogue, V. User involvement leads to more ethically sound research. Clinical Ethics 2006;1:95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Staley, K. ‘Is it worth doing?’ Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engag 2015;1:1–10.Google Scholar
6. Bergold, J, Thomas, S. Participatory research methods: a methodological approach in motion. Hist Soc Res 2012;37:191–222.Google Scholar
7. Apker, J, Eggly, S. Communicating professional identity in medical socialization: considering the ideological discourse of morning report. Qualit Health Res 2004;14:411–429.Google Scholar
8. National Institute for Health Research. Going The Extra Mile: Improving the Nation’s Health and Wellbeing Through Public Involvement in Research. London: National Institute for Health Research; 2015.Google Scholar
9. Staley, K. Exploring Impact: Public Involvement in NHS, Public Health and Social Care Research. Eastleigh, Hampshire, UK: INVOLVE; 2009.Google Scholar
10. Ocloo, J, Matthews, R. From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Qual Saf 2016;25:626–632.Google Scholar
11. Cook, T. Where participatory approaches meet pragmatism in funded (health) research: the challenge of finding meaningful spaces. Forum: Qualit Soc Res 2012;13 Art. 18.Google Scholar
12. Foster, V, Young, A. Reflecting on participatory methodologies: research with parents of babies requiring neonatal care. Int J Soc Res Method 2015;18:91–104.Google Scholar
13. Tanner, D. Co-research with older people with dementia: experience and reflections. J Mental Health 2012;21:296–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Harris, A, Pineles, L, Perencevich, E. Recognising the value of infection prevention and its role in addressing the antimicrobial resistance crisis. BMJ Qual Saf 2016. PMID: 28003479.Google Scholar
15. Siegel, JD, Rhinehart, E, Jackson, M, Chiarello, L, Health Care Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. 2007 guideline for isolation precautions: preventing transmission of infectious agents in health care settings. Am J Infect Control 2007;35:S65–S164.Google Scholar
16. World Health Organization. Report on the Burden of Endemic Health Care-Associated Infection Worldwide: Clean Care Is Safer Care. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011.Google Scholar
17. Iedema, R, Hor, S-Y, Wyer, M, et al. An innovative approach to strengthening health professionals’ infection control and limiting hospital-acquired infection: video-reflexive ethnography. BMJ Innov 2015;1:157–162.Google Scholar
18. Kangovi, S, Grande, D, Carter, T, et al. The use of participatory action research to design a patient-centered community health worker care transitions intervention. Healthcare 2014;2:136–144.Google Scholar
19. Hewett, DG, Watson, BM, Gallois, C, Ward, M, Leggett, BA. Intergroup communication between hospital doctors. Soc Sci Med 2009;69:1732–1740.Google Scholar
20. Leximancer Manual. Brisbane, Queensland: Leximancer Pty Ltd; 2011.Google Scholar
21. Hepworth, N, Paxton, SJ. Pathways to help-seeking in bulimia nervosa and binge eating problems: a concept mapping approach. Int J Eat Disord 2007;40:493–504.Google Scholar
22. Angus-Leppan, T, Benn, S, Young, L. A sensemaking approach to trade-offs and synergies between human and ecological elements of corporate sustainability. Bus Strat Environ 2010;19:230–244.Google Scholar
23. Understanding displays and outputs. Leximancer website. https://hypermancer.leximancer.com/faq/display_and_output.html#. Published 2013. Accessed March 21, 2013.Google Scholar
24. Thomas, DA. Searching for significance in unstructured data: text mining with Leximancer. Eur Educ Res J 2012;13:235–256.Google Scholar
25. Ashok, N, Rodrigues, JC, Azouni, K, et al. Knowledge and apprehension of dental patients about MERS—a questionnaire survey. J Clin Diagnos Res 2016;10:58–62.Google Scholar
26. Pantle, AC, Fitzpatrick, KR, McLaws, ML, Hughes, CF. A statewide approach to systematising hand hygiene behaviour in hospitals: Clean hands save lives, Part I. Med J Australia 2016;191:S8–S12.Google Scholar
27. Goldsack, JC, DeRitter, C, Power, M, et al. Clinical, patient experience and cost impacts of performing active surveillance on known methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus positive patients admitted to medical-surgical units. Am J Infect Control 2014;42:1039–1043.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Ward, D. Infection control: reducing the psychological effects of isolation. Brit J Nurs 2009;9:162–170.Google Scholar
29. Okada, J, Yamamizu, Y, Fukai, K. Effectiveness of hand hygiene depends on the patient’s health condition and care environment. Jap J Nurs Sci 2016;13:413–423.Google Scholar
30. Wyer, M, Jackson, D, Iedema, R, et al. Involving patients in understanding hospital infection control using visual methods. J Clin Nurs 2015;24:1718–1712.Google Scholar
31. Schiffinger, M, Latzke, M, Steyrer, J. Two sides of the safety coin? How patient engagement and safety climate jointly affect error occurrence in hospital units. Health Care Manag Rev 2016;41:356–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Gould, DJ, Drey, NS, Millar, M, Wilks, M, Chamney, M. Patients and the public: knowledge, sources of information and perceptions about healthcare-associated infection. J Hosp Infect 2009;72:1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Dixon-Woods, M, Amalberti, R, Goodman, S, Bergman, B, Glasziou, P. Problems and promises of innovation: why healthcare needs to rethink its love/hate relationship with the new. BMJ Qual Safety 2012;20:i47–i51.Google Scholar
34. Ahmad, R, Iwami, M, Castro-Sánchez, E, et al. Defining the user role in infection control. J Hosp Infect 2016;92:321–327.Google Scholar
35. Sotiriadou, P, Brouwers, J, Le, T-A. Choosing a qualitative data analysis tool. Ann Leisure Res 2012;17:218–234.Google Scholar
36. Dadich, A. Citizen social science: a methodology to facilitate and examine workplace learning in continuing interprofessional education. J Interprof Care 2014;28:194–199.Google Scholar
37. Dadich, A, Collier, A, Hodgins, M, Crawford, G. Using POSH VRE to examine positive deviance to new public management in healthcare. Qualit Health Res 2018; Epub ahead of print.Google Scholar
38. What is public involvement in research? Involve website. http://www.invo.org.uk/find-out-more/what-is-public-involvement-in-research-2/. Published 2015. Accessed January 23, 2016.Google Scholar
39. National Institute for Health Research. Public and Patient Involvement: Information for Researchers. Southampton, CT: National Institute for Health Research; 2013.Google Scholar
40. National Health and Medical Research Council. Australian Guidelines for the Prevention and Control of Infection in Healthcare. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2010.Google Scholar