Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-sbgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-19T06:13:41.736Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A discrete choice experiment to evaluate healthcare personnel preferences regarding risk-tailored policies for contact precautions for patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2025

Lyndsay M. O’Hara Open the ORCID record for Lyndsay M. O’Hara [Opens in a new window] ,
David P. Calfee Open the ORCID record for David P. Calfee [Opens in a new window] ,
Graham M. Snyder Open the ORCID record for Graham M. Snyder [Opens in a new window] ,
Elise M. Martin Open the ORCID record for Elise M. Martin [Opens in a new window] ,
Nicholas F. Angelino ,
Nathan N. O’Hara Open the ORCID record for Nathan N. O’Hara [Opens in a new window]  and
Anthony D. Harris
Lyndsay M. O’Hara*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
David P. Calfee
Affiliation:
Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
Graham M. Snyder
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Elise M. Martin
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Nicholas F. Angelino
Affiliation:
University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
Nathan N. O’Hara
Affiliation:
University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
Anthony D. Harris
Affiliation:
University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
*
Corresponding author: Lyndsay M. O’Hara; Email: lohara@epi.umaryland.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

An alternative to an “all or none” approach to contact precautions for patients with MRSA carriage may be a “risk-tailored” approach – using gloves and gowns only for certain high-risk activities, locations, or roles.

Methods:

We distributed a discrete choice experiment to healthcare personnel (HCPs) in three cities. Respondents were presented with eight choice sets, each consisting of two hypothetical policy options for glove and gown use to prevent MRSA transmission. In each comparison, respondents selected their preferred option. Using mixed logit modeling we calculated utility derived from each policy component, probability of uptake for the most favored policies, and heterogeneity in preferences based on HCP role.

Results:

In total, 326 HCPs completed the survey. 237 (54%) respondents reported wearing gloves and gowns ‘all the time’ when required. Respondents’ preferred policy with the highest utility score was to use gloves and gown for all HCPs roles (utility, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.23), in high-risk settings (utility, 0.12; 95% CI 0.07–0.18), when touching the patient (utility, 0.11; 95% CI 0.06–0.17). Sixty-three percent (95% CI 60–66) would support a risk-tailored approach over an approach where contact precautions are used by all HCPs in all settings and for all activities. Support varied by HCP role (p < 0.02), with the strongest probability of support from physicians and advanced practice providers (77%, 95% CI 72%–82%) and the least support from environmental services personnel (45%, 95% CI 37%–53%).

Conclusions:

This discrete choice survey demonstrates that most HCPs prefer a risk-tailored approach to contact precautions when caring for patients with MRSA.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , First View , pp. 1 - 6
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Popovich, KJ, Aureden, K, Ham, DC, Harris, AD, Hessels, AJ, Huang, SS, Maragakis, LL, Milstone, AM, Moody, J, Yokoe, D, Calfee, DP. SHEA/IDSA/APIC Practice Recommendation: Strategies to prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus transmission and infection in acute-care hospitals: 2022 Update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2023;44:1039–1067.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, E, Morgan, DJ, Pryor, R, Bearman, G. Contact precautions for MRSA and VRE: Where are we now? A survey of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Research Network. Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol 2024;4:e137. doi: 10.1017/ash.2024.350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marra, AR, Edmond, MB, Schweizer, ML, Ryan, GW, Diekema, DJ. Discontinuing contact precautions for multidrug-resistant organisms: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Am J Infect Control 2018;46:333–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleyman, R, Cupril-Nilson, S, Robinson, K, Thakore, S, Haq, F, Chen, L, Oyesanmi, O, Browning, K, Pino, J, Mhaskar, R. Does the removal of contact precautions for MRSA and VRE infected patients change health care-associated infection rate?: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Infect Control 2021;49:784–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karunakaran, S, Pless, LL, Ayres, AM, Ciccone, C, Penzelik, J, Sundermann, AJ, Martin, EM, Griffith, MP, Waggle, K, Hodges, JC, Harrison, LH. Impact of discontinuation of contact precautions on surveillance-and whole genome sequencing-defined methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus healthcare-associated infections. Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol 2024;4:e97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schrank, GM, Snyder, GM, Davis, RB, Branch-Elliman, W, Wright, SB. The discontinuation of contact precautions for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus: impact upon patient adverse events and hospital operations. BMJ Qual Saf 2020;29:1–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bearman, G, Abbas, S, Masroor, N, Sanogo, K, Vanhoozer, G, Cooper, K, Doll, M, Stevens, MP, Edmond, MB. Impact of discontinuing contact precautions for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus: an interrupted time series analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:676–682.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, EM, Colaianne, B, Bridge, C, Bilderback, A, Tanner, C, Wagester, S, Yassin, M, Pontzer, R, Snyder, GM. Discontinuing MRSA and VRE contact precautions: defining hospital characteristics and infection prevention practices predicting safe de-escalation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2022;43:1595–1602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haessler, S, Martin, EM, Scales, ME, Kang, L, Doll, M, Stevens, MP, Uslan, DZ, Pryor, R, Edmond, MB, Godbout, E, Abbas, S, Bearman, G. Stopping the routine use of contact precautions for management of MRSA and VRE at three academic medical centers: An interrupted time series analysis. Am J Infect Control 2020;48:1466–1473. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2020.06.219. Epub 2020 Jul 4. PMID: 32634537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, DJ, Diekema, DJ, Sepkowitz, K, Perencevich, EN. Adverse outcomes associated with contact precautions: a review of the literature. Am J Infect Control 2009;37:85–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, AD, Pineles, L, Belton, B, Johnson, JK, Shardell, M, Loeb, M, Newhouse, R, Dembry, L, Braun, B, Perencevich, EN, Hall, KK. Universal glove and gown use and acquisition of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the ICU: a randomized trial. Jama 2013;310:1571–1580.Google ScholarPubMed
Martin, EM, Bryant, B, Grogan, TR, et al. Noninfectious hospital adverse events decline after elimination of contact precautions for MRSA and VRE. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:788–796. doi: 10.1017/ice.2018.93 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Hara, LM, Harris, AD, Calfee, DP, Snyder, GM, Cottam, J, O’Hara, NN, Martin, EM. Healthcare personnel opinions regarding the feasibility of a risk-tailored approach to contact precautions for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the acute care setting. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2024:1–3.Google ScholarPubMed
Bearman, GM, Harris, AD, Tacconelli, E. Contact precautions for the control of endemic pathogens: finding the middle path. Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol 2023;3:e57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Hara, LM, Calfee, DP, Miller, LG, Pineles, L, Magder, LS, Johnson, JK, Morgan, DJ, Harris, AD. Optimizing contact precautions to curb the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in hospitals: A multicenter cohort study to identify patient characteristics and healthcare personnel interactions associated with transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2019;69:S171–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryan, M, Gerard, K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003;2:55–64.Google ScholarPubMed
Bridges, JFP, Kinter, ET, Kidane, L, Heinzen, RR, McCormick, C. Things are Looking up Since We Started Listening to Patients: Trends in the Application of Conjoint Analysis in Health 1982-2007. Patient 2008;1:273–282. doi: 10.2165/01312067-200801040-00009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, M, Farrar, S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000;320:1530–1533. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1530 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Bekker-Grob, EW, Donkers, B, Jonker, MF, Stolk, EA. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. Patient 2015;8:373–384. doi: 10.1007/s40271-015-0118-z. PMID: 25726010; PMCID: PMC4575371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erasmus, V, Brouwer, W, Van Beeck, EF, Oenema, A, Daha, TJ, Richardus, JH, Vos, MC, Brug, J. A qualitative exploration of reasons for poor hand hygiene among hospital workers lack of positive role models and of convincing evidence that hand hygiene prevents cross-infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009;30:415–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eveillard, M, Bruna, T, Kouatchet, A, Dubé, L, Poiroux, L, Dabin, E, Hitoto, H, Mercat, A, Joly-Guillou, ML, Desfontaines, H. Using a qualitative study to understand the failure of a strategy implemented for improving hand hygiene adherence in 4 intensive care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:447–448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

O’Hara et al. supplementary material

O’Hara et al. supplementary material
Download O’Hara et al. supplementary material(File)
File 2 MB