Factors affecting healthcare workers’ compliance with social and behavioural infection control measures during emerging infectious disease outbreaks: Rapid evidence review

Search strategy

The search strategy consisted of four search strings (adherence terms; protective behaviour terms; emerging infectious disease terms; and healthcare worker terms). The full search strategy can be seen in Appendix I. Five databases were searched from date of inception to May 4^th, 2020: MEDLINE®, PsycINFO®, Embase, Global Health, and Web of Science.

Selection criteria

To be included, studies had to: i) contain primary data; ii) be published in peer-reviewed journals in English; iii) include participants who worked in healthcare; iv) include data on factors predicting adherence to social or behavioural infection control practices during emerging infectious disease pandemics. For the latter criterion, quantitative data needed to report statistics on factors associated with compliance, while the qualitative component of the review considered studies reporting on participants’ beliefs about facilitators and barriers to compliance as well as any reported difficulties in complying with protective behaviours.

Screening

One author (SKB) ran the searches on all databases on May 4^th, 2020. Resulting citations were downloaded to EndNote© version X9 (Thomson Reuters, New York, USA). The same author evaluated titles for relevance, then used the inclusion criteria to screen abstracts and then full texts of remaining citations and exclude any which were irrelevant. Reference lists of all remaining papers were hand-searched for additional relevant studies.

Data extraction and synthesis

SKB extracted the following data from papers: authors, publication year, country of study, design, participants (including n, demographic information and profession), disease outbreak, protective behaviours measured, measures used, and key results. We used thematic analysis [11] to synthesise the data and group results into themes.

Socio-demographics and personal characteristics

Overall, there appeared to be no significant association between age [12,13,14,15,16,17,18] or gender [12,13,14,17,19,20,21] and protective behaviour. Only one study [20] found that older age was significantly associated with protective behaviours, while two found that female staff were significantly more likely to comply with protective behaviours [16,22].

One study examined nationality as a predictor [12] and found that Saudi staff were significantly more likely to comply with protective behaviours than non-Saudi staff working in the same city. Mixed findings were reported in the studies comparing behaviours across countries. Staff in Hong Kong and Singapore were more likely to comply than UK staff [23], whereas staff in Singapore vs Indonesia [24] or Hong Kong vs Canada [25] were more likely to comply with some recommendations but not others (see Supplementary Table III for details). Particular attention should be given to a worldwide study [26] that found no significant differences between countries in terms of taking protective measures.

There was no evidence of association between compliance and religion [20] or marital status [18,19]. One paper found that staff in ‘high or middle’ socioeconomic status were more likely to comply than those of lower socioeconomic status [22], and one found a significant association between compliance and qualification [12] (see Table III for details); these were offset by four studies finding that level of education was not associated with compliance [13,18,20,21]. One study found that H1N1 influenza vaccination was significantly associated with high compliance [27]. Having a chronic illness, being pregnant, or having a pregnant spouse, elderly person or school-aged child at home were not associated with compliance, but staff with babies at home were more likely to comply with protective behaviours [19].

Occupational role

Many studies which examined role as a predictor of compliance found a significant relationship [12,19,23,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36]; however, due to the variety of different roles compared across studies, it was not possible to identify a consistent pattern (see Supplementary Table III for details). Five studies found no significant association between role and compliance [13,16,17,37,38].

Length of time in role was not significantly associated with compliance in five studies [12,16,17,18,30], while two studies suggested that longer experience of working in healthcare was associated with greater compliance [31,33] and one suggested that less than ten years’ experience was associated with significantly higher compliance than more experience [36].

Training and knowledge

There was mixed evidence on the effectiveness of outbreak-specific training and education: one study [21] found no significant association between protective behaviours and having received education; another [17] found a non-significant increase in protective practices post-training; and a third [30] found that recent infection control training was a significant predictor of compliance with recommended behaviours. Jeong et al. [22] found that staff who sought information about the outbreak and infection control were more likely to comply with recommended behaviours. Qualitative evidence suggested that staff felt their prior training and education were not useful in dealing with the rapidly-changing nature of emerging infectious disease outbreaks [39,40]. Participants believed that inadequate training was a barrier to compliance [28] and that infection control training with annual refresher courses would benefit them [41].

Sources of knowledge about the outbreak and protective behaviours were not associated with protective behaviours in two studies [20,21] while knowledge from textbooks and attending Continuing Medical Education activities were significantly associated with higher levels of protective practice in one study [12]. Kim and Choi [20] found that receiving outbreak-specific training was not significantly associated with compliance, but higher outbreak-related knowledge did result in significantly higher compliance. Another study examining knowledge of the outbreak itself [28] found the majority of participants believed lack of knowledge about mode of transmission contributed to poor compliance. Knowledge of current recommendations was associated with compliance in three studies [4,16,27], associated with compliance in one hospital but not three other hospitals in another study [14] and was not associated with compliance in one further study [12]. Hsu et al. [42] found that a minority of participants believed that lack of education explained lack of compliance.

Work-related factors

Unsurprisingly, compliance was better in higher acuity settings such as emergency, intensive care or inpatient departments [14,35,38,43,44]. Wong et al. [45] found that staff in high-infection districts were more likely to wear gowns, wash hands and use disinfectants but less likely to comply with quarantine measures. But even then, two studies found no significant association between setting and compliance [19,21].

Having contact with confirmed cases was associated with higher compliance in four studies [14,18,35,43] whereas one study found no association [19]. Wong et al. [45] found that SARS-exposed staff were more likely than non-SARS-exposed staff to comply with mask guidance, but less likely to quarantine themselves.

There was reasonably consistent evidence that high workload may be a barrier to compliance with recommended personal protective behaviours [23,30,35,39,41,46], with only one study reporting the opposite - namely higher workload (in terms of working overtime) was associated with increased compliance in terms of giving patients appropriate infection control advice [36].

Two studies suggested that monitoring of compliance by superiors or public health authorities encouraged compliance [27,47], while a small minority of participants in Hsu et al.’s [42] study reported that better policing by infection control staff was the most important strategy for improving compliance.

Two studies suggested compliance was associated with characteristics of the patient encounter. Many of De Perio et al.’s [14] participants reported not using recommended PPE if they did not know the patient had H1N1 or an influenza-like illness, if they did not think it was needed for the particular activity they were doing, if they only entered the patient’s room for a brief time, if they did not touch the patient or if they did not come within six feet of the patient. Meanwhile, Shigayeva et al.’s [35] participants were less likely to comply with recommended behaviours when providing care for patients with more severe illness (which the authors suggest may be due to the time required to don barrier equipment leading staff to put patient safety above self-protection) and if they were only observing procedures, rather than performing or assisting with them.

Personal protective behaviour-related factors

Many studies, although mostly without statistical analysis, reported issues in performing personal protective behaviours, most notably due to lack of availability of appropriate PPE, perceived difficulty of protective behaviours, logistic issues, perceived effectiveness, perceived importance, convenience, comfort, and the impact on patient care.

Concerns about lack of PPE, largely due to insufficient resources, were very common [14,39,40,41,42,48,49,50,51,52,53]. Shortage of PPE created difficulties such as having to wear the wrong size PPE [40,41,51]. One study showed that availability of PPE was significantly associated with higher compliance [27], while another found that staff were significantly more compliant with PPE use when eyewear and gloves were readily available at the point of care, but availability did not increase compliance of N95 respirators, surgical masks or gowns [33]. Logistic issues were also reported, such as lack of space in the hospital, making it difficult to use PPE appropriately [51,54,55].

There may also be issues regarding the perceived difficulty of protective behaviours. Kang et al.’s [54] participants reported difficulties with the complexity of using several PPE items together, and only 35% of Van Dijk et al.’s [53] participants thought the recommended measures were feasible.

Perceived PPE effectiveness significantly predicted higher compliance in three studies [27,33,34]. In one qualitative study, staff expressed doubts about the quality and effectiveness of PPE [54]. Beliefs in the effectiveness of infection control procedures, as modified by previous experiences, were identified by participants as having a positive impact on compliance [46].

Hsu et al. [42] reported that failure to recognise the importance of hand hygiene prevented compliance, while Vinck et al. [36] found that the main reason for not complying with the recommendation to consult with a specialist unit for centralised assessment of symptomatic patients was associated with finding it ‘unnecessary’.

Many qualitative study participants reported not using PPE due to perceived inconvenience and its effect on their ability to do their job [14,27,39,40,41,42,54,56,57] – in particular, it appeared that participants found it too time-consuming to change in and out of protective clothing as it slowed them down substantially.

Many of Khalid et al.’s [49] participants reported that having to use PPE was ‘stressful’. Many qualitative studies found that discomfort of PPE was a barrier to compliance [39,40,41,46,52,56,57,58]. In several studies, participants reported discomfort and/or symptom due to PPE, including dehydration and skin peeling [41], difficulty breathing [40,52,58,59], sweating and dizziness [58], headaches [40,52,60] and skin rashes [40,52]. Comfort of PPE was a predictor of compliance in one quantitative study [33], with staff who reported always or often feeling comfortable wearing protective eyewear and N95 respirators significantly more likely to wear them; however, no significant association was found in compliance between staff who reported always or often feeling short of breath, claustrophobic or dizzy when wearing protective eyewear or N95 respirators and those who rarely experienced these symptoms.

Qualitative data confirmed that many healthcare professionals believe that PPE use has an impact on patient care, making it difficult to communicate with patients due to muffled speech [40,41,52,56,57,59], being unable to establish non-verbal cues with patients [60] and making them less ‘visible’ to their patients [61]. Masks were reported as being frightening to psychiatric patients [52], whilst PPE created anxiety in some patients who assumed the staff were wearing it because they had been exposed to the virus already [40]. One quantitative study found that the perception that PPE use would interfere with patient care was significantly associated with poor compliance [27].

Guidance

Many study participants reported a lack of guidance on the protocols for caring for infected patients and protecting themselves [28,30,39,40,41,46,50,51,53,54,55,56,58,61,62,63,64,65]. There was a consistent message about inadequate guidelines. These were often too long, providing staff with ‘information overload’ [30,50,63]. The recommended protocols changed too frequently for staff to keep up [39,41,54,55,58,56,61,63,64] and staff received conflicting messages from different sources [39,41,50,51,62,63,64]. Other issues included inconsistent advice about what to do when patients are deemed non-infectious [41], difficulty working out what should be prioritised [50] and external guidance with little relevance to specific locations [39]. The manner of communication of guidance also created problems. New guidelines were sent to them by email, which they did not check before work [39]; information was filtered down from other sources rather than given to them first-hand was frustrating [64]; and finally communication about changes to protocols was too slow [63].

Distress and risk perception

High levels of distress were associated with higher compliance in two studies: Chia et al. [43] found that higher distress was associated with higher use of respiratory protection while Wong et al. [45] found that staff who were highly anxious were more likely to comply with recommended protective behaviours. However, when the protective measure involved quarantine, some staff felt such high stress that it tempted them to break guidelines, although it is unclear if any actually did [47].

Risk perception was consistently associated with compliance. Four studies found that compliance was significantly more likely in staff who perceived the disease to be a serious risk [20,22,34,66] and another found that perceived seriousness of the outbreak was significantly associated with compliance in Hong Kong but not in Singapore or the UK [23]. Three qualitative papers also suggested that participants themselves believed staff complied with recommended behaviours when they perceived the risk to be severe [39,47,51]. However, one study [21] showed a significant negative correlation between protective behaviours and fear of infection.

Attitudes and behaviours of others

Qualitative data confirmed that many participants had observed non-compliance in colleagues or managers [27,39], which could lead to non-compliance in the participants themselves [30,42]. DiGiovanni et al.’s [47] participants suggested that managers had modified the recommended quarantine guidelines to allow their staff to return to duty in response to critical staff shortages. Yassi et al.’s [46] participants believed that compliance of other occupational groups within the healthcare setting had an impact on compliance, while more than half of Hsu et al.’s [42] participants believed that senior staff ‘leading by example’ and complying with recommended behaviours was the single most important strategy in improving staff compliance.

Attitudes of family members were also deemed important in two qualitative studies [39,46] with healthcare staff reporting they were encouraged to comply by anxious family members who were afraid of getting infected.

Limitations

We are aware that many papers (particularly on SARS and MERS) have been published in other (predominantly Asian) languages, but due to the rapid nature of this review we limited inclusion to English-language papers only. Future reviews should consider translating and analysing the many relevant foreign-language papers. Also due to the rapid nature of the review, quality appraisal of individual papers was not carried out as this is not always deemed necessary when urgent evidence synthesis is required [71].