4.3 Article

Eliminating Healthcare-Associated Infections in Iran: A Qualitative Study to Explore Stakeholders' Views

出版社

KERMAN UNIV MEDICAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.34

关键词

Healthcare-Associated Infection (HAI); Elimination; Stakeholders' Views; Policy Implications; Qualitative Study; Iran

资金

  1. Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran [93-02-27-25156]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although preventable, healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) continue to pose huge health and economic burdens on countries worldwide. Some studies have indicated the numerous causes of HAIs, but only a tiny literature exists on the multifaceted measures that can be used to address the problem. This paper presents stakeholders' opinions on measures for controlling HAIs in Iran. Methods: We used the qualitative research method in studying the phenomenon. Through a purposive sampling approach, we conducted 24 face-to-face interviews using a semi-structured interview guide. Participants were mainly key informants, including policy-makers, health professionals, and technical officers across the national and sub-national levels, including the Ministry of Health (MoH), medical universities, and hospitals in Iran. We performed thematic framework analysis using the software MAXQDA10. Results: Four main interdisciplinary themes emerged from our study of measures of controlling HAIs: strengthening governance and stewardship; strengthening human resources policies; appropriate prescription and usage of antibiotics; and environmental sanitation and personal hygiene. Conclusion: According to our findings, elimination of HAIs demands multifactorial interventions. While the ultimate recommendation of policy-makers is to have HAIs among the priorities of the national agenda, financial commitment and the creation of an enabling work environment in which both patients and healthcare workers can practice personal hygiene could lead to a significant reduction in HAIs in Iran.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据