Economic evaluations of interventions to prevent and control health-care-associated infections: a systematic review.

Almost 9 million health-care-associated infections have been estimated to occur each year in European hospitals and long-term care facilities, and these lead to an increase in morbidity, mortality, bed occupancy, and duration of hospital stay. The aim of this systematic review was to review the cost-effectiveness of interventions to limit the spread of health-care-associated infections), framed by WHO infection prevention and control core components. The Embase, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment, Cinahl, Scopus, Pediatric Economic Database Evaluation, and Global Index Medicus databases, plus grey literature were searched for studies between Jan 1, 2009, and Aug 10, 2022. Studies were included if they reported interventions including hand hygiene, personal protective equipment, national-level or facility-level infection prevention and control programmes, education and training programmes, environmental cleaning, and surveillance. The British Medical Journal checklist was used to assess the quality of economic evaluations. 67 studies were included in the review. 25 studies evaluated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus outcomes. 31 studies evaluated screening strategies. The assessed studies that met the minimum quality criteria consisted of economic models. There was some evidence that hand hygiene, environmental cleaning, surveillance, and multimodal interventions were cost-effective. There were few or no studies investigating education and training, personal protective equipment or monitoring, and evaluation of interventions. This Review provides a map of cost-effectiveness data, so that policy makers and researchers can identify the relevant data and then assess the quality and generalisability for their setting.

Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Declaration of interests This systematic review was funded by WHO and Newcastle University. All authors declare no competing interests.