BabyGel pilot: a pilot cluster randomised trial of the provision of alcohol handgel to postpartum mothers to prevent neonatal and young infant infection-related morbidity in the community

A cluster randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness of household alcohol-based hand rub for the prevention of sepsis, diarrhoea, and pneumonia in Ugandan infants (the BabyGel trial): a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Infections are one of the leading causes of death in the neonatal period. This trial aims to evaluate if the provision of alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) to pregnant women for postnatal household use prevents severe infections (including sepsis, diarrhoea, pneumonia, or death) among infants during the first three postnatal months.

METHODS

Through a cluster-randomised trial in eastern Uganda, 72 clusters are randomised in a 2-arm design with rural villages as units of randomisation. We estimate to include a total of 5932 pregnant women at 34 weeks of gestation. All women and infants in the study are receiving standard antenatal and postnatal care. Women in the intervention group additionally receive six litres of ABHR and training on its use. Research midwives conduct follow-up visits at participants' homes on days 1, 7, 28, 42, and 90 after birth and telephone calls on days 14, 48, and 60 to assess the mother and infant for study outcomes. Primary analyses will be by intention to treat.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide evidence on the effectiveness of a locally available and low-cost intervention in preventing neonatal sepsis and early infant infections. If ABHR is found effective, it could be implemented by adding it to birthing kits.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, PACTR202004705649428. Registered 1 April 2020, https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/ .

A controlled before-and-after study of a multi-modal intervention to improve hand hygiene during the peri-natal period in Cambodia

Adequate hand hygiene practices throughout the continuum of care of maternal and newborn health are essential for infection prevention. However, the hand hygiene compliance of facility-based birth attendants, parents and other caregivers along this continuum is low and behavioural-science informed interventions targeting the range of caregivers in both the healthcare facility and home environments are scarce. We assessed the limited efficacy of a novel multimodal behaviour change intervention, delivered at the facility, to improve the hand hygiene practices among midwives and caregivers during childbirth through the return to the home environment. The 6-month intervention was implemented in 4 of 8 purposively selected facilities and included environmental restructuring, hand hygiene infrastructure provision, cues and reminders, and participatory training. In this controlled before-and-after study, the hand hygiene practices of all caregivers present along the care continuum of 99 women and newborns were directly observed. Direct observations took place during three time periods; labour, delivery and immediate aftercare in the facility delivery room, postnatal care in the facility ward and in the home environment within the first 48 h following discharge. Multilevel logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline measures, assessed differences in hand hygiene practices between intervention and control facilities. The intervention was associated with increased odds of improved practice of birth attendants during birth and newborn care in the delivery room (Adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 4.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.7, 7.7), and that of parental and non-parental caregivers prior to newborn care in the post-natal care ward (AOR = 9.2; CI = 1.3, 66.2); however, the absolute magnitude of improvements was limited. Intervention effects were not presented for the home environment due COVID-19 related restrictions on observation duration at endline which resulted in too low observation numbers to warrant testing. Our results suggest the potential of a facility-based multimodal behaviour change intervention to improve hand hygiene practices that are critical to maternal and neonatal infection along the continuum of care.

Hand Hygiene during the Early Neonatal Period: A Mixed-Methods Observational Study in Healthcare Facilities and Households in Rural Cambodia

BACKGROUND

Globally, infections are the third leading cause of neonatal mortality. Predominant risk factors for facility-born newborns are poor hygiene practices that span both facilities and home environments. Current improvement interventions focus on only one environment and target limited caregivers, primarily birth attendants and mothers. To inform the design of a hand hygiene behavioural change intervention in rural Cambodia, a formative mixed-methods observational study was conducted to investigate the context-specific behaviours and determinants of handwashing among healthcare workers, and maternal and non-maternal caregivers along the early newborn care continuum.

METHODS

Direct observations of hygiene practices of all individuals providing care to 46 newborns across eight facilities and the associated communities were completed and hand hygiene compliance was assessed. Semi-structured interactive interviews were subsequently conducted with 35 midwives and household members to explore the corresponding cognitive, emotional and environmental factors influencing the observed key hand hygiene behaviours.

RESULTS

Hand hygiene opportunities during newborn care were frequent in both settings (n = 1319) and predominantly performed by mothers, fathers and non-parental caregivers. Compliance with hand hygiene protocol across all caregivers, including midwives, was inadequate (0%). Practices were influenced by the lack of accessible physical infrastructure, time, increased workload, low infection risk perception, nurture-related motives, norms and inadequate knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that an effective intervention in this context should be multi-modal to address the different key behaviour determinants and target a wide range of caregivers.

Hand hygiene for the prevention of infections in neonates

BACKGROUND

Annually, infections contribute to approximately 25% of the 2.8 million neonatal deaths worldwide. Over 95% of sepsis-related neonatal deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Hand hygiene is an inexpensive and cost-effective method of preventing infection in neonates, making it an affordable and practicable intervention in low- and middle-income settings. Therefore, hand hygiene practices may hold strong prospects for reducing the occurrence of infection and infection-related neonatal death.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of different hand hygiene agents for preventing neonatal infection in community and health facility settings.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 5), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 10 May 2019); Embase (1980 to 10 May 2019); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 10 May 2019). We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. Searches were updated 1 June 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs, cross-over trials, and quasi-RCTs that included pregnant women, mothers, other caregivers, and healthcare workers who received interventions within the community or in health facility settings DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were incidence of (study author-defined) suspected infection within the first 28 days of life, bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life, all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life (early neonatal death), and all-cause mortality from the 8th to the 28th day of life (late neonatal death).

MAIN RESULTS

Our review included five studies: one RCT, one quasi-RCT, and three cross-over trials with a total of more than 5450 neonates (two studies included all neonates but did not report the actual number of neonates involved). Four studies involved 279 nurses working in neonatal intensive care units and all neonates on admission. The fifth study did not clearly state how many nurses were included in the study. Studies examined the effectiveness of different hand hygiene practices for the incidence of (study author-defined) suspected infection within the first 28 days of life. Two studies were rated as low risk for selection bias, another two were rated as high risk, and one study was rated as unclear risk. One study was rated as low risk for allocation bias, and four were rated as high risk. Only one of the five studies was rated as low risk for performance bias. 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) compared to plain liquid soap We are uncertain whether plain soap is better than 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) for nurses' skin based on very low-certainty evidence (mean difference (MD) -1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.31 to -0.19; 16 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We identified no studies that reported on other outcomes for this comparison. 4% chlorhexidine gluconate compared to triclosan 1% One study compared 1% w/v triclosan with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate and suggests that 1% w/v triclosan may reduce the incidence of suspected infection (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.60; 1916 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There may be fewer cases of infection in the 1% w/v triclosan group compared to the 4% chlorhexidine gluconate group (RR 6.01, 95% CI 3.56 to 10.14; 1916 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); however, we are uncertain of the available evidence. We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality, duration of hospital stay, and adverse events for this comparison. 2% CHG compared to alcohol hand sanitiser (61% alcohol and emollients) We are uncertain whether 2% chlorhexidine gluconate reduces the risk of all infection in neonates compared to 61% alcohol hand sanitiser with regards to the incidence of all bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.69; 2932 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) in the 2% chlorhexidine gluconate group, but the evidence is very uncertain.   The adverse outcome was reported as mean visual scoring on the skin. There may be little to no difference between the effects of 2% CHG on nurses' skin compared to alcohol hand sanitiser based on very low-certainty evidence (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.59; 118 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality and other outcomes for this comparison. None of the included studies assessed all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life nor duration of hospital stay.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain as to the superiority of one hand hygiene agent over another because this review included very few studies with very serious study limitations.

Hygiene along the continuum of care in the early post-natal period: an observational study in Nigeria

BACKGROUND

Newborns delivered in healthcare facilities in low- and middle-income countries are at an increased risk of healthcare associated infections. Facility-based studies have focused primarily on healthcare worker behaviour during labour & delivery with limited attention to hygiene practices in post-natal care areas and largely ignore the wide variety of actors involved in maternal and neonatal care.

METHODS

This exploratory mixed-methods study took place in six healthcare facilities in Nigeria where 31 structured observations were completed during post-natal care, discharge, and the first 6 hours after return to the home. Frequency of hand hygiene opportunities and hand hygiene actions were assessed for types of patient care (maternal and newborn care) and the role individuals played in caregiving (healthcare workers, cleaners, non-maternal caregivers). Qualitative interviews with mothers were completed approximately 1 week after facility discharge.

RESULTS

Maternal and newborn care were performed by a range of actors including healthcare workers, mothers, cleaners and non-maternal caregivers. Of 291 hand hygiene opportunities observed at health facilities, and 459 observed in home environments, adequate hand hygiene actions were observed during only 1% of all hand hygiene opportunities. Adequate hand hygiene prior to cord contact was observed in only 6% (1/17) of cord contact related hand hygiene opportunities at healthcare facilities and 7% (2/29) in households. Discharge advice was infrequent and not standardised and could not be remembered by the mother after a week. Mothers reported discomfort around telling non-maternal caregivers to practice adequate hand hygiene for their newborn.

CONCLUSIONS

In this setting, hand hygiene practices during post-natal care and the first 6 hours in the home environment were consistently inadequate. Effective strategies are needed to promote safe hand hygiene practices within the post-natal care ward and home in low resource, high-burden settings. Such strategies need to target not just mothers and healthcare workers but also other caregivers.