Hand Sanitiser Provision for Reducing Illness Absences in Primary School Children: A Cluster Randomised Trial

English version České info

Background:
The potential for transmission of infectious diseases offered by the school environment are likely to be an important contributor to the rates of infectious disease experienced by children. This study aimed to test whether the addition of hand sanitiser in primary school classrooms compared with usual hand hygiene would reduce illness absences in primary school children in New Zealand.

Methods and Findings:
This parallel-group cluster randomised trial took place in 68 primary schools, where schools were allocated using restricted randomisation (1∶1 ratio) to the intervention or control group. All children (aged 5 to 11 y) in attendance at participating schools received an in-class hand hygiene education session. Schools in the intervention group were provided with alcohol-based hand sanitiser dispensers in classrooms for the winter school terms (27 April to 25 September 2009). Control schools received only the hand hygiene education session. The primary outcome was the number of absence episodes due to any illness among 2,443 follow-up children whose caregivers were telephoned after each absence from school. Secondary outcomes measured among follow-up children were the number of absence episodes due to specific illness (respiratory or gastrointestinal), length of illness and illness absence episodes, and number of episodes where at least one other member of the household became ill subsequently (child or adult). We also examined whether provision of sanitiser was associated with experience of a skin reaction. The number of absences for any reason and the length of the absence episode were measured in all primary school children enrolled at the schools. Children, school administrative staff, and the school liaison research assistants were not blind to group allocation. Outcome assessors of follow-up children were blind to group allocation. Of the 1,301 and 1,142 follow-up children in the hand sanitiser and control groups, respectively, the rate of absence episodes due to illness per 100 child-days was similar (1.21 and 1.16, respectively, incidence rate ratio 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.18). The provision of an alcohol-based hand sanitiser dispenser in classrooms was not effective in reducing rates of absence episodes due to respiratory or gastrointestinal illness, the length of illness or illness absence episodes, or the rate of subsequent infection for other members of the household in these children. The percentage of children experiencing a skin reaction was similar (10.4% hand sanitiser versus 10.3% control, risk ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.30). The rate or length of absence episodes for any reason measured for all children also did not differ between groups. Limitations of the study include that the study was conducted during an influenza pandemic, with associated public health messaging about hand hygiene, which may have increased hand hygiene among all children and thereby reduced any additional effectiveness of sanitiser provision. We did not quite achieve the planned sample size of 1,350 follow-up children per group, although we still obtained precise estimates of the intervention effects. Also, it is possible that follow-up children were healthier than non-participating eligible children, with therefore less to gain from improved hand hygiene. However, lack of effectiveness of hand sanitiser provision on the rate of absences among all children suggests that this may not be the explanation.

Conclusions:
The provision of hand sanitiser in addition to usual hand hygiene in primary schools in New Zealand did not prevent disease of severity sufficient to cause school absence.

Trial registration:
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000478213

Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Vyšlo v časopise: Hand Sanitiser Provision for Reducing Illness Absences in Primary School Children: A Cluster Randomised Trial. PLoS Med 11(8): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001700
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001700

Souhrn

Conclusions:
The provision of hand sanitiser in addition to usual hand hygiene in primary schools in New Zealand did not prevent disease of severity sufficient to cause school absence.

Trial registration:
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000478213

Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Zdroje

1. MurrayCJ, VosT, LozanoR, NaghaviM, FlaxmanAD, et al. (2012) Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380: 2197–2223.

2. BakerMG, BarnardLT, KvalsvigA, VerrallA, ZhangJ, et al. (2012) Increasing incidence of serious infectious diseases and inequalities in New Zealand: a national epidemiological study. Lancet 379: 1112–1119.

3. NeuzilKM, HohlbeinC, ZhuY (2002) Illness among schoolchildren during influenza season: effect on school absenteeism, parental absenteeism from work, and secondary illness in families. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 156: 986–991.

4. PittetD (2005) Clean care is safer care: the first global challenge of the WHO World Alliance for Patient Safety. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 26: 891–894.

5. AielloAE, CoulbornRM, PerezV, LarsonEL (2008) Effect of hand hygiene on infectious disease risk in the community setting: a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health 98: 1372–1381.

6. EjemotRI, EhiriJE, MeremikwuMM, CritchleyJA (2008) Hand washing for preventing diarrhoea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008: CD004265.

7. JeffersonT, Del MarCB, DooleyL, FerroniE, Al-AnsaryLA, et al. (2011) Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011: CD006207.

8. BowenA, MaH, OuJ, BillhimerW, LongT, et al. (2007) A cluster-randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of a handwashing-promotion program in Chinese primary schools. Am J Trop Med Hyg 76: 1166–1173.

9. StebbinsS, CummingsDA, StarkJH, VukotichC, MitrukaK, et al. (2011) Reduction in the incidence of influenza a but not influenza b associated with use of hand sanitizer and cough hygiene in schools: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J 30: 921–926.

10. GuinanM, McGuckinM, AliY (2002) The effect of a comprehensive handwashing program on absenteeism in elementary schools. Am J Infect Control 30: 217–220.

11. HammondB, AliY, FendlerE, DolanM, DonovanS (2000) Effect of hand sanitizer use on elementary school absenteeism. Am J Infect Control 28: 340–346.

12. Nandrup-BusI (2009) Mandatory handwashing in elementary schools reduces absenteeism due to infectious illness among pupils: a pilot intervention study. Am J Infect Control 37: 820–826.

13. SandoraTJ, ShihMC, GoldmannDA (2008) Reducing absenteeism from gastrointestinal and respiratory illness in elementary school students: a randomized, controlled trial of an infection-control intervention. Pediatrics 121: e1555–e1562.

14. WhiteCG, ShinderFS, ShinderAL, DyerDL (2001) Reduction of illness absenteeism in elementary schools using an alcohol-free instant hand sanitizer. J Sch Nurs 17: 258–265.

15. MeadowsE, Le SauxN (2004) A systematic review of the effectiveness of antimicrobial rinse-free hand sanitizers for prevention of illness-related absenteeism in elementary school children. BMC Public Health 4: 50.

16. ReevesLM, PriestPC, PooreMR (2012) School toilets: facilitating hand hygiene? A review of primary school hygiene facilities in a developed country. J Public Health 34: 483–488.

17. JewkesRK, O'ConnorBH (1990) Crisis in our schools: survey of sanitation facilities in schools in Bloomsbury health district. BMJ 301: 1085–1087.

18. VesseyJA, SherwoodJJ, WarnerD, ClarkD (2007) Comparing hand washing to hand sanitizers in reducing elementary school students' absenteeism. Pediatr Nurs 33: 368–372.

19. McKenzieJ, PriestP, AudasR, PooreM, BruntonC, et al. (2010) Hand sanitisers for reducing illness absences in primary school children in New Zealand: a cluster randomised controlled trial study protocol. Trials 11: 7.

20. EldridgeSM, UkoumunneOC, CarlinJB (2009) The intra-cluster correlation coefficient in cluster randomized trials: a review of definitions. Int Stat Rev 77: 378–394.

21. UkoumunneOC, GullifordMC, ChinnS, SterneJA, BurneyPG (1999) Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 3: iii–92.

22. New Zealand Ministry of Education (2009) How the decile is calculated. Available: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools/SchoolOperations/Resourcing/OperationalFunding/Deciles/HowTheDecileIsCalculated.aspx. Accessed 23 March 2014.

23. EldridgeS, KerryS, TorgersonDJ (2009) Bias in identifying and recruiting participants in cluster randomised trials: what can be done? BMJ 339: b4006.

24. GeraldLB, GeraldJK, McClureLA, HarringtonK, ErwinS, et al. (2011) Redesigning a large school-based clinical trial in response to changes in community practice. Clin Trials 8: 311–319.

25. MortonJ, SchultzA (2004) Healthy hands: use of alcohol gel as an adjunct to handwashing in elementary school children. J Sch Nurs 20: 161–167.

26. Lopez L, Huang QS (2010) Influenza in New Zealand 2009. Wellington: Institute of Environmental Science and Research.

27. Bandaranayake D, Huang QS, Bissielo A, Wood T (2010) Seroprevalence of the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in New Zealand. Wellington: Institute of Environmental Science and Research.

28. LubySP, KadirMA, Yushuf SharkerMA, YeasminF, UnicombL, et al. (2010) A community-randomised controlled trial promoting waterless hand sanitizer and handwashing with soap, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Trop Med Int Health 15: 1508–1516.

29. CampbellMK, ElbourneDR, AltmanDG (2004) CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 328: 702–708.