The study used a quasi-experimental study design. A semi-structured checklist was used for health facility assessment and a self-administered questionnaire of HCPs. Pre- and postintervention assessments were made in urban primary health centers (UPHCs), HCPs, and patients. Interventions included sharing facility-specific recommendations, AIC plans and guidelines, HCP training, and patient education. Statistical difference between the two time periods was assessed using the Chi-square test.
A total of 23 and 25 UPHCs were included for pre- and postintervention assessments. All 25 centers participated in interventions. Open areas were >20% of ground area in all facilities. No AIC committee was present in any of the facilities at both pre- and postintervention. Of all HCPs, 7% (23/337) versus 65% (202/310) had undergone AIC training. Good awareness improved from 24% (81/337) to 71% (220/310) after intervention (P < 0.001). Appropriate cough hygiene was known to 20% (51/262) versus 58% (152/263) patients at two assessments (P < 0.001).
Comprehensive intervention, including supportive supervision of health centers, training of HCPs, and patient education, can improve AIC practices.
■该研究采用了准实验研究设计。使用半结构化清单进行医疗机构评估,并对HCP进行自我管理问卷。在城市初级卫生中心(UPHC)进行了干预前和干预后评估,HCP,和病人。干预措施包括分享针对具体设施的建议,AIC计划和指导方针,HCP培训,和病人的教育。使用卡方检验评估两个时间段之间的统计学差异。
■总共包括23和25个UPHC用于干预前后评估。所有25个中心都参与了干预措施。在所有设施中,开放面积>地面面积的20%。在干预前和干预后,任何设施中都没有AIC委员会。在所有HCP中,7%(23/337)和65%(202/310)接受过AIC训练。干预后知晓率从24%(81/337)提高到71%(220/310)(P<0.001)。在两次评估中,20%(51/262)对58%(152/263)的患者已知适当的咳嗽卫生(P<0.001)。
■全面干预,包括对卫生中心的支持性监督,HCPs的培训,和病人教育,可以改善AIC实践。