STOPFLU: is it possible to reduce the number of days off in office work by improved hand-hygiene?

Carita Savolainen-Kopra, Jaason Haapakoski, Piia A Peltola, Thedi Ziegler, Terttu Korpela, Pirjo Anttila, Ali Amiryousefi, Pentti Huovinen, Markku Huvinen, Heikki Noronen, Pia Riikkala, Merja Roivainen, Petri Ruutu, Juha Teirilä, Erkki Vartiainen, Tapani Hovi, Carita Savolainen-Kopra, Jaason Haapakoski, Piia A Peltola, Thedi Ziegler, Terttu Korpela, Pirjo Anttila, Ali Amiryousefi, Pentti Huovinen, Markku Huvinen, Heikki Noronen, Pia Riikkala, Merja Roivainen, Petri Ruutu, Juha Teirilä, Erkki Vartiainen, Tapani Hovi

Abstract

Background: Acute infectious diseases are major causes of short periods of days off from work, day care and school. These diseases are mainly caused by viruses and hands have a key role in their transmission. Thus, hypothetically, they can be controlled with means of intensified hand hygiene. In this study we aim to elucidate the effect of acute infectious diseases on the work contribution in common office work and study the influence of improved hand hygiene on possible reduction of infectious disease episodes and days off from work due to acute infectious diseases.

Design: The voluntary participants have been recruited from six companies in the Helsinki region. The designated 21 study clusters were identified as operationally distinct working units each containing at least 50 people. The clusters were matched and randomized based on results of a pre-trial contagion risk survey. Improved hand hygiene is being executed with guided hand-washing with soap and water in one intervention arm and with alcohol based hand rubbing disinfectant in the other. Participants in both arms have received guidance on how to avoid infections and how to implement contagion stopping habits. A control arm is acting as before regarding hand hygiene. Data collection for evaluation of the efficacy of the interventions is based on self-reporting through weekly electronic reports. The questionnaire is enquiring about possible respiratory or gastrointestinal symptoms during the preceding week, and requests a daily report of presence of symptoms and working capacity. Etiology of the symptoms is not searched for individually, but contribution of different viruses is evaluated by sentinel surveillance, where occupational health clinics located in the premises of the participating companies collect specimens from employees visiting the clinic. Common causative agents of the diseases are being searched for using real-time PCR techniques. The duration of the intervention will be 16 months. Primary endpoints of the study are the number of reported infection episodes in a cluster within a time frame of 100 reporting weeks and the number of reported sick leave episodes in a cluster within a time frame of 100 reporting weeks.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00821509.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01095523 NCT00821509 NCT01095523.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Factors influencing viral infection induced periods of days off from work. Steps in the process, from the point of view of an individual, are indicated in boldface by squares connected anticlockwise with each other by open arrows. Factors influencing translocation from one step to the following are shown in rounded squares and by black arrows to "regulation points" (crossed circle). Dashed open arrow represents contribution of viral load to the working team in case an infected individual remains at work or returns from home before the excretion period is over. Back-to-back triangles with i inside indicate the site of influence of improved hand hygiene at work and that of transmission-limiting behavior at work.

References

    1. Nesti MM, Goldbaum M. Infectious diseases and daycare and preschool education. J Pediatr (Rio J) 2007;83(4):299–312. doi: 10.2223/JPED.1649.
    1. Pittet D, Allegranzi B, Sax H, Dharan S, Pessoa-Silva CL, Donaldson L, Boyce JM. Evidence-based model for hand transmission during patient care and the role of improved practices. Lancet Infect Dis. 2006;6(10):641–652. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(06)70600-4.
    1. Oughton MT, Loo VG, Dendukuri N, Fenn S, Libman MD. Hand hygiene with soap and water is superior to alcohol rub and antiseptic wipes for removal of Clostridium difficile. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009;30(10):939–944. doi: 10.1086/605322.
    1. Grayson ML, Melvani S, Druce J, Barr IG, Ballard SA, Johnson PD, Mastorakos T, Birch C. Efficacy of soap and water and alcohol-based hand-rub preparations against live H1N1 influenza virus on the hands of human volunteers. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48(3):285–291. doi: 10.1086/595845.
    1. Jefferson T, Foxlee R, Del Mar C, Dooley L, Ferroni E, Hewak B, Prabhala A, Nair S, Rivetti A. Interventions for the interruption or reduction of the spread of respiratory viruses (Review) The Cochrane Library. 2007;4:1–54.
    1. Aiello AE, Coulborn RM, Perez V, Larson EL. Effect of hand hygiene on infectious disease risk in the community setting: a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(8):1372–1381. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.124610.
    1. Uhari M, Mottonen M. An open randomized controlled trial of infection prevention in child day-care centers. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1999;18(8):672–677. doi: 10.1097/00006454-199908000-00004.
    1. Ponka A, Poussa T, Laosmaa M. The effect of enhanced hygiene practices on absences due to infectious diseases among children in day care centers in Helsinki. Infection. 2004;32(1):2–7. doi: 10.1007/s15010-004-3036-x.
    1. Larson EL. Warned, but not well armed: preventing viral upper respiratory infections in households. Public Health Nurs. 2006;24:48–59. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1446.2006.00607.x.
    1. Mott PJ, Sisk BW, Arbogast JW, Ferrazzano-Yaussy C, Bondi CA, Sheehan JJ. Alcohol-based instant hand sanitizer use in military settings: a prospective cohort study of Army basic trainees. Mil Med. 2007;172(11):1170–1176.
    1. Huber MA, Holton RH, Terezhalmy GT. Cost analysis of hand hygiene using antimicrobial soap and water versus an alcohol-based hand rub. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2006;7(2):37–45.
    1. Graham JW, Flay BR, Johnson CA, Hansen WB, Collins LM. A multiattribute utility measurement approach to the use of random assignment with small number of aggregated units. Eval Rev. 1984;8:247–260. doi: 10.1177/0193841X8400800206.
    1. Murray DM, Varnell SP, Blitstein JL. Design and analysis of group-randomized trials: a review of recent methodological developments. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(3):423–432. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.94.3.423.
    1. Ray WA, Taylor JA, Meador KG, Thapa PB, Brown AK, Kajihara HK, Davis C, Gideon P, Griffin MR. A randomized trial of a consultation service to reduce falls in nursing homes. JAMA. 1997;278(7):557–562. doi: 10.1001/jama.278.7.557.
    1. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB. Bayesian data analysis. 2. Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2004.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever