TY - JOUR
T1 - Psychosocial determinants associated with healthcare workers’ self-reported compliance with infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic
T2 - a cross-sectional study in Dutch residential care facilities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities
AU - Houben, Famke
AU - Heijer, Casper DJ den
AU - Dukers-Muijrers, Nicole Htm
AU - Smeets-Peels, Claudia
AU - Hoebe, Christian Jpa
N1 - Funding Information:
A cross-sectional questionnaire study was performed. This study was part of the larger mixed methods study NIEZT (Needs assessment for infection prevention among healthcare professionals outside the hospital) (grant number: 331618). The objective of the NIEZT study was to assess IPC compliance and its determinants among HCWs in Dutch RCFs for people with IDDs.
Funding Information:
This research was funded by the Limburg infection prevention and antibiotic resistance care network (LINK) (through budget they obtained from Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport [VWS] (grant number: 331618). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2023/10/19
Y1 - 2023/10/19
N2 - Background: Healthcare workers’ (HCWs) compliance with infection prevention and control (IPC) is crucial to reduce the infection transmission risk. However, HCWs’ compliance with IPC in residential care facilities (RCFs) for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) is known to be suboptimal. Therefore, this study examined sociodemographic and psychosocial determinants associated with IPC non-compliance in this setting, to inform IPC policy and promotion programmes for adequate IPC behaviour. Methods: An online questionnaire was administered to 285 HCWs from 16 RCFs between March 2021 and March 2022. Determinants associated with IPC non-compliance were assessed using logistic regression analyses. Results: Being a woman (OR: 3.57; 1.73–7.37), and being a non-medical professional were associated with increased odds of non-compliance (social workers, OR: 2.83; 1.65–4.85; behavioural specialists, OR: 6.09; 1.98–18.72). Perceived inadequate education/training (aOR: 1.62; 1.15–2.27) and perceived time constraints/competing priorities (aOR: 1.43; 1.03–1.98) were also associated with increased odds of non-compliance, independent of sociodemographic variables. In contrast, the belief that the supervisor complies with IPC (descriptive norm supervisor) was associated with decreased odds of non-compliance (aOR: 0.60; 0.41–0.88). Conclusions: To improve IPC in disability care settings, the implementation of tailored and structural IPC education and training programmes (e.g., on-the-job training) is recommended to increase HCWs’ capabilities and bridge the IPC compliance gap between medical and non-medical professionals. In addition, role models, particularly supervisors, are crucial for promoting IPC behaviour. Facilities should create a culture of IPC compliance by norm setting, acting on, and modelling IPC behaviours at all levels of the organisation (management, medical, and non-medical staff).
AB - Background: Healthcare workers’ (HCWs) compliance with infection prevention and control (IPC) is crucial to reduce the infection transmission risk. However, HCWs’ compliance with IPC in residential care facilities (RCFs) for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) is known to be suboptimal. Therefore, this study examined sociodemographic and psychosocial determinants associated with IPC non-compliance in this setting, to inform IPC policy and promotion programmes for adequate IPC behaviour. Methods: An online questionnaire was administered to 285 HCWs from 16 RCFs between March 2021 and March 2022. Determinants associated with IPC non-compliance were assessed using logistic regression analyses. Results: Being a woman (OR: 3.57; 1.73–7.37), and being a non-medical professional were associated with increased odds of non-compliance (social workers, OR: 2.83; 1.65–4.85; behavioural specialists, OR: 6.09; 1.98–18.72). Perceived inadequate education/training (aOR: 1.62; 1.15–2.27) and perceived time constraints/competing priorities (aOR: 1.43; 1.03–1.98) were also associated with increased odds of non-compliance, independent of sociodemographic variables. In contrast, the belief that the supervisor complies with IPC (descriptive norm supervisor) was associated with decreased odds of non-compliance (aOR: 0.60; 0.41–0.88). Conclusions: To improve IPC in disability care settings, the implementation of tailored and structural IPC education and training programmes (e.g., on-the-job training) is recommended to increase HCWs’ capabilities and bridge the IPC compliance gap between medical and non-medical professionals. In addition, role models, particularly supervisors, are crucial for promoting IPC behaviour. Facilities should create a culture of IPC compliance by norm setting, acting on, and modelling IPC behaviours at all levels of the organisation (management, medical, and non-medical staff).
KW - COVID-19
KW - Cross-sectional studies
KW - Developmental disability
KW - Infection control
KW - Intellectual disability
KW - Long-term care
U2 - 10.1186/s12889-023-16912-0
DO - 10.1186/s12889-023-16912-0
M3 - Article
SN - 1471-2458
VL - 23
JO - BMC Public Health
JF - BMC Public Health
IS - 1
M1 - 2052
ER -