A systematic review of economic evaluation of healthcare associated infection prevention and control interventions in long term care facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Healthcare-associated infections (HCAI) are common in long-term care facilities (LTCF) and cause significant burden. Infection prevention and control (IPC) measures include the clinical best practices (CBP) of hand hygiene, hygiene and sanitation, screening, and basic and additional precautions. Few studies demonstrate their cost-effectiveness in LTCF, and those that do, largely focus on one CBP. An overarching synthesis of IPC economic analyses in this context is warranted. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of CBP applied in LTCF. Methods We twice queried CINAHL, Cochrane, EconLit, Embase, Medline, Web of Science and Scopus for studies published in the last three decades of economic evaluations of CBP in LTCF. We included controlled and randomized clinical trials, cohort, longitudinal, follow-up, prospective, retrospective, cross-sectional, and simulations studies, as well as those based on mathematical or statistical modelling. Two reviewers conducted study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment of studies. We applied discounting rates of 3%, 5% and 8%, and presented all costs in 2022 Canadian dollars. The protocol of this review was registered with Research Registry (reviewregistry1210) and published in BMC Systematic Reviews. Findings We found 3,331 records and then 822 records; ten studies were retained. The economic analyses described were cost-minimization (n = 1), cost-benefit (n = 1), cost-savings (n = 2), cost-utility (n = 2) and cost-effectiveness which included cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses (n = 4). Four studies were high quality, three were moderate, and three were low quality. Inter-rater agreement for quality assessment was 91⋅7%. All studies (n = 10) demonstrated that CBP associated with IPC are clinically effective in LTCF and many (n = 6) demonstrated their cost effectiveness. Interpretation Ongoing economic evaluation research of IPC remains essential to underpin healthcare policy choices guided by empirical evidence for LTCF residents and staff.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.165 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".