Effect Of Supplying Schools With Soap And Hand Sanitizer In A Controlled School-Based Hand Hygiene Trial To Reduce Respiratory Infections

Author(s):  
Kathleen F. Harrington ◽  
Lynn B. Gerald ◽  
Bin Zhang ◽  
William C. Bailey
PEDIATRICS ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernestina Azor-Martinez ◽  
Leticia Garcia-Mochon ◽  
Monica Lopez-Lacort ◽  
Jenna Marie Strizzi ◽  
Francisco Javier Muñoz-Vico ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND We previously demonstrated that a hand hygiene program, including hand sanitizer and educational measures, for day care center (DCC) staff, children, and parents was more effective than a soap-and-water program, with initial observation, in preventing respiratory infections (RIs) in children attending DCCs. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of these programs in preventing RIs. METHODS A cluster, randomized, controlled and open study of 911 children aged 0 to 3 years, attending 24 DCCs in Almeria. Two intervention groups of DCC-families performed educational measures and hand hygiene, one with soap-and-water (SWG) and another with hand sanitizer (HSG). The control group (CG) followed usual hand-washing procedures. RI episodes, including symptoms, treatments, medical contacts, complementary analyses, and DCC absenteeism days, were reported by parents. A Bayesian cost-effectiveness model was developed. RESULTS There were 5201 RI episodes registered. The adjusted mean societal costs of RIs per child per study period were CG: €522.25 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 437.10 to 622.46); HSG: €374.53 (95% CI: 314.90 to 443.07); SWG: €494.51 (95% CI: 419.21 to 585.27). The indirect costs constituted between 35.7% to 43.6% of the total costs. Children belonging to the HSG had an average of 1.39 fewer RI episodes than the CG and 0.93 less than the SWG. It represents a saving of societal cost mean per child per study period of €147.72 and €119.15, respectively. The HSG intervention was dominant versus SWG and CG. CONCLUSIONS Hand hygiene programs that include hand sanitizer and educational measures for DCC staff, children, and parents are more effective and cost less than a program with soap and water and initial observation in children attending DCCs.


Author(s):  
Jane Lee Jia Jing ◽  
Thong Pei Yi ◽  
Rajendran J. C. Bose ◽  
Jason R. McCarthy ◽  
Nagendran Tharmalingam ◽  
...  

Hand hygiene is of utmost importance as it may be contaminated easily from direct contact with airborne microorganism droplets from coughs and sneezes. Particularly in situations like pandemic outbreak, it is crucial to interrupt the transmission chain of the virus by the practice of proper hand sanitization. It can be achieved with contact isolation and strict infection control tool like maintaining good hand hygiene in hospital settings and in public. The success of the hand sanitization solely depends on the use of effective hand disinfecting agents formulated in various types and forms such as antimicrobial soaps, water-based or alcohol-based hand sanitizer, with the latter being widely used in hospital settings. To date, most of the effective hand sanitizer products are alcohol-based formulations containing 62%–95% of alcohol as it can denature the proteins of microbes and the ability to inactivate viruses. This systematic review correlated with the data available in Pubmed, and it will investigate the range of available hand sanitizers and their effectiveness as well as the formulation aspects, adverse effects, and recommendations to enhance the formulation efficiency and safety. Further, this article highlights the efficacy of alcohol-based hand sanitizer against the coronavirus.


2020 ◽  
Vol 86 (18) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica L. Prince-Guerra ◽  
Molly E. Nace ◽  
Robert H. Lyles ◽  
Anna M. Fabiszewski de Aceituno ◽  
Faith E. Bartz ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Hand hygiene interventions are critical for reducing farmworker hand contamination and preventing the spread of produce-associated illness. Hand hygiene effectiveness may be produce-commodity specific, which could influence implementation strategies. This study’s goal was to determine if produce commodity influences the ability of handwashing with soap and water or two-step alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS) interventions to reduce soil and bacteria on farmworker hands. Farmworkers (n = 326) harvested produce (cantaloupe, jalapeño, and tomato) for 30 to 90 minutes before engaging in handwashing, two-step ABHS (jalapeño and cantaloupe), or no hand hygiene. Hands were rinsed to measure amounts of soil (absorbance at 600 nm) and indicator bacteria (coliforms, Enterococcus sp., generic Escherichia coli, and Bacteroidales universal [AllBac] and human-specific [BFD] 16S rRNA gene markers). Without hand hygiene, bacterial concentrations (0.88 to 5.1 log10 CFU/hand) on hands significantly differed by the produce commodity harvested. Moderate significant correlations (ρ = −0.41 to 0.56) between soil load and bacterial concentrations were observed. There were significant produce-commodity-specific differences in the ability of handwashing and two-step ABHS interventions to reduce soil (P < 0.0001), coliforms (P = 0.002), and Enterococcus sp. (P = 0.003), but not the Bacteroidales markers AllBac (P = 0.4) or BFD (P = 0.3). Contamination on hands of farmworkers who harvested cantaloupe was more difficult to remove. Overall, we found that a two-step ABHS intervention was similar to handwashing with soap and water at reducing bacteria on farmworker hands. In summary, produce commodity type should be considered when developing hand hygiene interventions on farms. IMPORTANCE This study demonstrated that the type of produce commodity handled influences the ability of handwashing with soap and water or a two-step alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS) intervention to reduce soil and bacterial hand contamination. Handwashing with soap and water, as recommended by the FDA’s Produce Safety Rule, when tested in three agricultural environments, does not always reduce bacterial loads. Consistent with past results, we found that the two-step ABHS method performed similarly to handwashing with soap and water but also does not always reduce bacterial loads in these contexts. Given the ease of use of the two-step ABHS method, which may increase compliance, the two-step ABHS method should be further evaluated and possibly considered for implementation in the agricultural environment. Taken together, these results provide important information on hand hygiene effectiveness in three agricultural contexts.


2013 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 411-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy J. Pickering ◽  
Jennifer Davis ◽  
Jenna Scalmanini ◽  
George Okoth ◽  
Pavani K. Ram ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 144 (12) ◽  
pp. 2561-2567 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. INAIDA ◽  
Y. SHOBUGAWA ◽  
S. MATSUNO ◽  
R. SAITO ◽  
H. SUZUKI

SUMMARYNorovirus (NoV) epidemics normally peak in December in Japan; however, the peak in the 2009–2010 season was delayed until the fourth week of January 2010. We suspected intensive hand hygiene that was conducted for a previous pandemic influenza in 2009 as the cause of this delay. We analysed the NoV epidemic trend, based on national surveillance data, and its associations with monthly output data for hand hygiene products, including alcohol-based skin antiseptics and hand soap. The delayed peak in the NoV incidence in the 2009–2010 season had the lowest number of recorded cases of the five seasons studied (2006–2007 to 2010–2011). GII.4 was the most commonly occurring genotype. The monthly relative risk of NoV and monthly output of both alcohol-based skin antiseptics and hand soap were significantly and negatively correlated. Our findings suggest an association between hand hygiene using these products and prevention of NoV transmission.


2003 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry Michaels ◽  
Vidhya Gangar ◽  
Chia-Min Lin ◽  
Michael Doyle

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (9) ◽  
pp. 1033-1034 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herleen Rai ◽  
Shanina Knighton ◽  
Trina F. Zabarsky ◽  
Curtis J. Donskey
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
E. Yuen ◽  
J. Fried ◽  
C. Salvador ◽  
D.A. Gudis ◽  
R.J. Schlosser ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND: Viral respiratory infections are a leading cause of worldwide mortality and exert the potential to cause global socioeconomic crises. However, inexpensive, efficacious, and rapidly deployable strategies to reduce viral transmission are increasingly important in the setting of an ongoing pandemic, though not entirely understood. This article provides a comprehensive review of commonly employed nonpharmacological interventions to interrupt viral spread and provides evidence-based recommendations for their use. METHODOLOGY: A systematic review of three databases was performed. Studies with defined endpoints of subjects receiving one of five interventions (nasal washing, gargling, personal protective equipment (PPE), social distancing, and hand hygiene) were included. An evidence-based review of the highest level of evidence, with recommendations, was created in accordance with a previously described, rigorous, iterative process. RESULTS: Fifty-four primary studies were included. The most commonly studied intervention was hand hygiene, followed by PPE, gargling, saline nasal washing, and social distancing. CONCLUSIONS: Mask use and hand hygiene are strong recommendations for prevention of viral transmission. Donning gloves, gowns, and eye protection are a recommendation in healthcare settings. Saline nasal washing and gargling are options in selected populations. Although an aggregate level of evidence is not provided, the authors recommend social distancing.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Desta Assefa H/mariam ◽  
Tadesse Gudeta

Abstract Background: Alcohol-based hand sanitizer is a crucial and widely used product to avert the rapid spreading of corona-virus disease (COVID-19). However, frequent apply of alcohol-based hand sanitizer mainly at the point-of-care can cause health risks and shortages in and outside the healthcare facilities. The present study was designed to assess the utilization of alcohol-based hand sanitizers and the incidence of associated health risks among health care professionals in COVID-19 pandemic times. Method: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at the Jimma University Medical Center, Ethiopia, between April 01 and June 27, 2020. The collected data were analyzed and described using IBM SPSS Statistics software version 21.Results: Ninety-six health care professionals with 28.69+4.048 years of mean age participated in the study. 95.8% of them practiced alcohol-based hand sanitizers to avert COVID-19 virus transmission in the healthcare setting and community. But they were challenges to practice hand hygiene with alcohol-based hand sanitizers. The common problems were alcohol-based hand sanitizers unavailability 66(68.8%), costly 50(52.1%), and skin damage 8(8.3%). Most of them experienced health risks such as skin dryness 60(62.5%), skin irritation 27(28.1%), ocular irritation 11(11.5%), cough 11(11.5%), and others. These health risks resulted in that 9(9.4%) of them did not practice hand hygiene by alcohol-based hand sanitizers (p-value = 0.999). Conclusion: To prevent COVID-19 virus transmission by alcohol-based hand sanitizers, health care professionals faced different challenges, such as access to alcohol-based hand sanitizers and reported health risks. Therefore, the regulatory and public health bodies should promote local production of alcohol-based hand sanitizers with careful follow-up, and its health risks management plan should gain attention.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document