Abstract:Background. Occupational exposure to blood and body fluids has become a serious public health problem for healthcare workers and is a major risk for the transmission of various infections such as human immune-deficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, and hepatitis C virus. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine the career time and previous one-year global pooled prevalence of occupational exposure to blood and body fluids among healthcare workers. Methods. For the review, the articles published … Show more
“…Although strict adoption of universal precautions has decreased high-risk exposure to HIV in the last two decades, the prevalence may be much higher than expected due to possible underreporting [ 40 , 41 ]. Two systematic reviews [ 42 , 43 ] reported a high worldwide prevalence of needlestick injuries. Exposure to blood or body fluids in the healthcare setting were 56.2% and 56.6% during career time and 32.4% and 39% in the previous year, respectively.…”
With no expected vaccine for HIV in the near future, we aimed to define the current situation and challenges for pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP and PEP) in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The Euroguidelines CEE Network Group members were invited to respond to a 27-item survey including questions on PrEP (response rate 91.6%). PrEP was licensed in 68.2%; 95 centers offered PrEP and the estimated number on PrEP was around 9000. It was available in daily (40.1%), on-demand (13.3%), or both forms (33.3%). The access rate was <1–80%. Three major barriers for access were lack of knowledge/awareness among people who are in need (59.1%), not being reimbursed (50.0%), and low perception of HIV risk (45.5%). Non-occupational PEP was available in 86.4% and was recommended in the guidelines in 54.5%. It was fully reimbursed in 36.4%, only for accidental exposures in 40.9%, and was not reimbursed in 22.72%. Occupational PEP was available in 95.5% and was reimbursed fully. Although PrEP scale-up in the region has gained momentum, a huge gap exists between those who are in need of and those who can access PrEP. Prompt action is required to address the urgent need for PrEP scale-up in the CEE region.
“…Although strict adoption of universal precautions has decreased high-risk exposure to HIV in the last two decades, the prevalence may be much higher than expected due to possible underreporting [ 40 , 41 ]. Two systematic reviews [ 42 , 43 ] reported a high worldwide prevalence of needlestick injuries. Exposure to blood or body fluids in the healthcare setting were 56.2% and 56.6% during career time and 32.4% and 39% in the previous year, respectively.…”
With no expected vaccine for HIV in the near future, we aimed to define the current situation and challenges for pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP and PEP) in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The Euroguidelines CEE Network Group members were invited to respond to a 27-item survey including questions on PrEP (response rate 91.6%). PrEP was licensed in 68.2%; 95 centers offered PrEP and the estimated number on PrEP was around 9000. It was available in daily (40.1%), on-demand (13.3%), or both forms (33.3%). The access rate was <1–80%. Three major barriers for access were lack of knowledge/awareness among people who are in need (59.1%), not being reimbursed (50.0%), and low perception of HIV risk (45.5%). Non-occupational PEP was available in 86.4% and was recommended in the guidelines in 54.5%. It was fully reimbursed in 36.4%, only for accidental exposures in 40.9%, and was not reimbursed in 22.72%. Occupational PEP was available in 95.5% and was reimbursed fully. Although PrEP scale-up in the region has gained momentum, a huge gap exists between those who are in need of and those who can access PrEP. Prompt action is required to address the urgent need for PrEP scale-up in the CEE region.
“…The actual sample size for the study was determined using a single population proportion formula { n = [(zα/2) 2 p(1−p)]/d 2 }, n = sample size, z α/2 = 95% confidence level, P = the proportion of HIV-positive HCWs among post exposure to BBFs in the previous study (48.2%), 19 d = margin of error (0.05). By considering 10% of non-response rate, the final sample size of the study was 422.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because of the highest patient flow, nurses are overloaded, so they are at the highest risk of such exposure at emergency department. 2 …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3 However, exposure among HCWs in the health sector is sometimes caused by exposure to blood and body fluids (BBFs). 2 Every year, approximately 15 000 healthcare workers become infected with this preventable infection. 4 , 5 …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, according to the research conducted by Mengistu et al and Yasin et al of the exposed HCWs, 22.3% were HIV positive. 2 , 9 …”
Objectives: The study investigated the sero-status of human immunodeficiency virus among healthcare workers in Addis Ababa public hospitals. Methods: A multi-centered, institutional-based cross-sectional study was conducted from September 18, 2022, to October 30, 2022. A simple random sampling method and semi-structured, self-administered questionnaires were used to collect the data, which were analyzed using statistical package for social science version 25. A binary logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with the sero-status of healthcare workers’ post-exposure blood and body fluids for the human immunodeficiency virus. Results: Of the 420 study participants who were exposed to blood and body fluids, 403 (96%) were non-reactive. Healthcare workers who had 20 to 29 years of work experience had approximately 6 times higher odds of testing positive for human immunodeficiency virus (AOR = 6.21, 95% CI: (2.39, 9.55). Healthcare workers who did not use personal protective equipment properly had 5 times higher odds of testing positive for human immunodeficiency virus (AOR = 5.02, CI: 3.73, 9.51). Conclusion: This study showed that a higher proportion of healthcare workers at the emergency department were positive for human immunodeficiency virus infection among healthcare workers who were exposed to blood and body fluids and tested immediately. Healthcare workers who did not use personal protective equipment properly had higher odds of testing positive for human immune-deficiency virus.
The study investigated the sero-status of human immunodeficiency virus among healthcare workers in Addis Ababa public hospitals. A multi-centered, institutional-based, crosssectional study was conducted from 18 September 2022 to 30 October 2022. A simple random sampling method and a semi-structured, self-administered questionnaire were used to collect the data, which were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25. A binary logistic regression model was used to identify the factors associated with the human immunodeficiency virus sero-status of healthcare workers post exposure to infected blood and body fluids. Of the 420 study participants who were exposed to blood and body fluids, 403 (96%) were non-reactive. Healthcare workers who had 20-29 years of work experience had approximately six times higher odds of testing positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (AOR = 6.21, 95% CI: 2.39, 9.55). Healthcare workers who did not use personal protective equipment properly had five times higher odds of testing positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (AOR = 5.02, CI: 3.73, 9.51). This study showed that, among those healthcare workers who tested positive for the human immunodeficiency virus infection, the majority were from the emergency department. Healthcare workers who did not use personal protective equipment properly had higher odds of testing positive for the human immunodeficiency virus.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.