Hubner 2010.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | A prospective, controlled, intervention‐control group design to assess the epidemiological and economical impact of alcohol‐based hand disinfectants use at workplace. Volunteers in public administrations in the municipality of the city of Greifswald were randomised into 2 groups. Participants in the intervention group were provided with alcoholic hand disinfection, the control group was unchanged. In all, 1230 person‐months were evaluated. | |
| Participants | Employees (n = 134) from the administration of the Ernst‐Moritz‐Arndt University Greifswald, the municipality of Greifswald and the state of Mecklenburg‐Pomerania, were recruited for the study and randomised to intervention (N = 67) or control (N = 67). Final analysis was performed on 64 from the intervention and 65 from the control group. Inclusion criteria: all administrative officers, who did not already apply hand disinfection at work, were considered for participation and were invited by email or mail (n = 850). The 134 participants declared their written consent to participate and completed a pre‐study survey with demographic, social, health, and work‐related questions to provide data for randomisation. Exclusion criteria: employees that were already using hand disinfectants at work |
|
| Interventions | Alcohol‐based hand disinfectants use at workplace versus usual hygiene. See Table 4 for details. | |
| Outcomes | Respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms and days of work were recorded based on a monthly questionnaire over 1 year. | |
| Notes | Funding source not mentioned. Competing interests: the authors declare a financial competing interest: GK is employed by Bode Chemie GmbH, Hamburg, Germany. NOH and AK received financial support for research from Bode Chemie in the past. All other authors declare no conflict of interest. |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No details provided. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No details provided. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Unblinded study |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Self‐reported outcomes |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Lost to follow‐up minimal and similar in 2 groups |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | No protocol available |