Huang 2002.
| Methods | Design: RCT
Study period: September 2000‐January 2001 Questionnaires and observations done at baseline and at 4 months post‐intervention China |
|
| Participants | Nurses throughout a hospital | |
| Interventions | Education, mainly universal precautions | |
| Outcomes | % of nurses washing hands before and after patient contact Also evaluated knowledge scores, prevalence of Hepatitis B immunisation, self‐reported behaviours related to blood‐borne pathogens and universal precautions, self‐reported needlestick and sharps injury, and observed behaviours related to handling used needles. |
|
| Notes | Intervention successful after 4 months Appropriate analysis Funding source: No information given Declaration of Interest: No information given |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not specified how were randomly selected to participate nor randomly allocated to group |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Allocation was done at the start of the study but method was not reported |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Education and questionnaire were very specific so participants aware of intervention |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Researchers did not specify if observers were blinded |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | 98% follow‐up achieved in both groups Missing data (missed opportunities) unlikely to be different in both arms |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | No evidence of selective reporting |
| Other bias | Low risk | No evidence |
| Baseline outcomes | Low risk | Similar at baseline |
| Baseline characteristics | Low risk | Similar at baseline |
| Protection from contamination | Unclear risk | Participants worked in same institution so may have communicated with each other |