Cited by 30Surgical site infection preventionPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareInfection Control in Healthcare

Patient understanding of and participation in infection-related care across surgical pathways: a scoping review

Open access
Mbamalu, Oluchi, Bonaconsa, Candice, Nampoothiri, Vrinda, Surendran, Surya, Veepanattu, Pranav, Singh, Sanjeev, Dhar, Puneet, Carter, Vanessa +6 more·2021·International Journal of Infectious Diseases

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore the existing evidence on patient understanding of and/or participation in infection-related care in surgical specialties. METHOD: A scoping review of the literature was conducted. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and grey literature sources were searched using predefined search criteria for policies, guidelines, and studies in the English language. Data synthesis was done through content and thematic analysis to identify key themes in the included studies. RESULTS: The initial search identified 604 studies, of which 41 (36 from high-income and five from low- and middle-income countries) were included in the final review. Most of the included studies focused on measures to engage patients in infection prevention and control (IPC) activities, with few examples of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) engagement strategies. While patient engagement interventions in infection-related care varied depending on study goals, surgical wound management was the most common intervention. AMS engagement was primarily limited to needs assessment, without follow-up to address such needs. CONCLUSION: Existing evidence highlights a gap in patient participation in infection-related care in the surgical pathway. Standardization of patient engagement strategies is challenging, particularly in the context of surgery, where several factors influence how the patient can engage and retain information. Infection-related patient engagement and participation strategies in surgery need to be inclusive and contextually fit.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.07.039

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The setting also has uncommon characteristics that differ from other international settings.

    “The setting also has uncommon characteristics that differ from other international settings.34,35”

    From Rationalizing irrational prescribing—infection-related attitudes and practices across paediatric surgery specialties in a hospital in South India (2024) · cites this paper as [35]

    The General characteristics of the included studies section describes where the reviewed studies were conducted, and the Grey Literature section notes some differences in national antimicrobial policies. Neither identifies the citing document’s setting or says it has uncommon characteristics compared with other international settings. Searches for the quoted wording and for unique setting differences found no such comparison. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hulzebos EHJ , Helders PJM , Favié NJ , De Bie RA , Brutel de la Riviere A , Van Meeteren NLU . Muscle training to prevent postoperative pulmonary complica- tions in high-risk patients undergoing CABG surgery: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2006;296(15):1851-7 . · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mbamalu, O., Bonaconsa, C., Nampoothiri, V., Surendran, S., Veepanattu, P., Singh, S., Dhar, P., Carter, V., Boutall, A., Pennel, T., Hampton, M., Holmes, A., Mendelson, M., & Charani, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Cape Town (ZA)
  • Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham (IN)
  • Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (ET)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Mbamalu, Oluchi
  • Charani, Esmita
Venue
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-09
Volume
110
Pages
123-134
ISSN
1201-9712 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3183836788
Cited by
29
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0617-10176)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/P008313/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical site infection prevention
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
Keywords
patient engagement, patient understanding, infection control, antimicrobial stewardship, surgical care, surgical wound care, patient participation, surgical pathway, needs assessment
MeSH terms
Antimicrobial Stewardship, Humans, Infection Control, Needs Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review