↓ Skip to main content

A cross-sectional observational study about media and infection control practices: are photographic portrayals of healthcare workers setting a bad example?

Overview of attention for article published in Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
27 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A cross-sectional observational study about media and infection control practices: are photographic portrayals of healthcare workers setting a bad example?
Published in
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13756-015-0094-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

E. J. W. Spierings, P. T. J. Spierings, M. Nabuurs-Franssen, J. Hopman, E. Perencevich, A. Voss

Abstract

Attempts to increase compliance with infection control practices are complex and are - in part - based on attempts to change behaviour. In particular, the behaviour of significant peers (role models) has been shown to be a strong motivator. While role models within the working environment are obviously the most important, some experts suggest that media and public display cannot be ignored. The aim of this present study was to examine the display of technique recommended by current infection control guidelines including the "bare below the elbow" principle, which is considered a basic requirement for good infection control in many countries, in sets of professional stock photos. From 20 random photo-stock websites we selected pictures with search terms "doctor and patient" and "nurse and patient". In all selected photos a doctor or nurse and a patient were presented, healthcare workers (HCWs) were wearing white coats or uniforms, and their arms were visible. Each photo was evaluated with regard to: closure of white coat, sleeve length, personal clothing covered, hairstyle and presence of a wristwatch, bracelet and/or ring. Overall, 1600 photos were evaluated. The most common mistakes were with regard to HCWs' white coats/uniforms. Eighty-nine percent of the photos containing doctor's images were considered incorrect while 28 % of nurse-containing photos were incorrect. The results seem to reflect the real world with only 40 % displaying correct behaviour with doctors being worse than nurses. It seems that the stereotypical image of a doctor does not agree with the current infection control guidelines. If we aim for higher compliance rates of HCWs, we need to change the social image of doctors and improve production, selection and display of stock photo images.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 17%
Student > Master 4 13%
Professor 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 8 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Mathematics 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2016.
All research outputs
#1,079,873
of 20,943,519 outputs
Outputs from Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control
#111
of 1,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,614
of 399,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control
#8
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,943,519 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,177 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 399,029 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.