Skip to main content

Table 3 Factors associated with the risk perception to infected/colonised cases of antimicrobial resistance

From: Risk perception of antimicrobial resistance by infection control specialists in Europe: a case-vignette study

Population-based variables

Individual risk

Collective risk

Number of participants with a Low/Neutral-risk perceptiona

Number of participants with a High-risk perceptiona

Univariate analysis (p value)

Number of participants with a Low/Neutral-risk perceptiona

Number of participants with a High-risk perceptiona

Univariate analysis (p value)

Participants years of practice as an IPC specialist (n = 128)

 < 5

3 (7)

13 (15)

0.10

5 (12)

11 (13)

1.00

 ≥ 5

48 (94)

64 (83)

 

38 (88)

874 (87)

 

Type of healthcare facility of participants (n = 128)

 Private hospitals

1 (2)

1 (1)

0.86

0 (0)

2 (2)

0.34

 Public general hospital

24 (47)

40 (52)

 

25 (58)

39 (46)

 

 University hospital

26 (51)

36 (47)

 

18 (42)

44 (52)

 

Number of acute care beds (n = 128)

 < 300

13 (25)

16 (21)

0.72

10 (23)

19 (22)

0.97

 300–600

11 (22)

21 (27)

 

10 (23)

22 (26)

 

 ≥ 600

27 (53)

40 (52)

 

23 (54)

44 (52)

 

Epidemiology of MDROs the year prior the study

 Local number of MDRO bacteremia in 2015a, (n = 461)

  0

42 (19)

64 (26)

0.01

15 (13)

91 (26)

0.001

  1-≤ 10

81 (37)

107 (44)

 

45 (38)

143 (41)

 

  > 10

94 (43)

74 (30)

 

57 (49)

111 (32)

 

 National invasive infections, Resistant isolate % (n = 495)

  < 1%

33 (14)

60 (23)

0.003

10 (9)

83 (23)

< 0.001

  1-< 5%

24 (10)

38 (15)

 

7 (5)

55 (15)

 

  5-< 10%

13 (6)

25 (10)

 

11 (9)

27 (7)

 

  10-< 25%

59 (25)

41 (16)

 

39 (30)

61 (17)

 

  25-< 50%

32 (14)

35 (13)

 

21 (16)

46 (13)

 

  50-< 75%

14 (6)

6 (2)

 

5 (4)

15 (4)

 

  ≥ 75%

59 (25)

56 (21)

 

35 (27)

80 (22)

 

Local IPC organisation

 Low level

27 (53)

49 (64)

0.22

22 (51)

54 (64)

0.18

 High level

24 (47)

28 (36)

 

21 (49)

31 (36)

 

Individual cognitive factors for compliance with AMR control measures

 Low level

34 (67)

46 (60)

0.42

27 (63)

53 (62)

0.96

 High level

17 (33)

31 (40)

 

16 (37)

32 (38)

 

Perception of the organization and work conditions in participants hospital

 Teamwork

  Low level

43 (84)

56 (73)

0.12

34 (79)

65 (76)

0.74

  High level

8 (16)

21 (27)

 

9 (21)

20 (24)

 

 Perception of management

  Low level

42 (82)

54 (70)

0.12

33 (77)

63 (74)

0.75

  High level

9 (18)

23 (30)

 

10 (23)

22 (26)

 

 Stress and chaos

  Low level

41 (80)

60 (78)

0.74

37 (86)

64 (75)

0.16

  High level

10 (20)

17 (22)

 

6 (14)

21 (25)

 

 Well-being and work conditions

  Low level

37 (73)

53 (69)

0.65

31 (72)

59 (69)

0.75

  High level

14 (27)

24 (31)

 

12 (28)

26 (31)

 

National socio-cultural factors

 Power Distance

  Low level

36 (71)

59 (77)

0.44

28 (65)

67 (79)

0.09

  High level

15 (29)

18 (23)

 

15 (35)

18 (21)

 

 Uncertainty Avoidance

  Low level

41 (80)

55 (71)

0.25

32 (74)

64 (75)

0.91

  High level

10 (20)

22 (29)

 

11 (26)

21 (25)

 

 Individualism

  Low level

33 (65)

57 (74)

0.26

28 (65)

62 (73)

0.36

  High level

18 (35)

20 (26)

 

15 (35)

23 (27)

 

Masculinity

  Low level

34 (67)

54 (70)

0.68

24 (60)

64 (75)

0.02

  High level

17 (33)

23 (30)

 

19 (40)

21 (25)

 

Socio-economic factors

 GDP per capita

  Low level

41 (80)

63 (82)

0.84

33 (80)

71 (84)

0.35

  High level

10 (20)

14 (18)

 

10 (20)

14 (16)

 

 Health expenditure per capita

  Low level

27 (53)

50 (65)

0.17

18 (42)

59 (69)

0.003

  High level

24 (47)

27 (35)

 

25 (58)

26 (31)

 
  1. Footnotes:
  2. Individual risk corresponds to the risk of poor clinical outcomes for infected/colonised patients; collective risk corresponds to the risk for contact patients to become colonised and the transmission to other patients
  3. aLow/Neutral-risk perception: Mean Scores = 1–5; High-risk perception: Mean Scores = 6–7
  4. Power distance index (PDI): The power distance index is defined as “the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions accept and expect that power is distributed unequally”. A higher degree of the Index indicates that hierarchy is clearly established and executed in society, without doubt or reason. A lower degree of the Index signifies that people question authority and attempt to distribute power
  5. Uncertainty avoidance (UAI): The uncertainty avoidance index is defined as “a society’s tolerance for ambiguity”, in which people embrace or avert an event of something unexpected, unknown, or away from the status quo. Societies that score a high degree in this index opt for stiff codes of behaviour, guidelines, laws, and generally rely on absolute truth, or the belief that one lone truth dictates everything and people know what it is. A lower degree in this index shows more acceptance of differing thoughts or ideas
  6. Individualism vs. collectivism (IDV): This index explores the “degree to which people in a society are integrated into groups”. Individualistic societies have loose ties that often only relate an individual to his/her immediate family. They emphasize the “I” versus the “we”. Its counterpart, collectivism, describes a society in which tightly-integrated relationships tie extended families and others into in-groups. These in-groups are laced with undoubted loyalty and support each other when a conflict arises with another in-group
  7. Masculinity vs. femininity (MAS): In this dimension, masculinity is defined as “a preference in society for achievement, heroism, assertiveness and material rewards for success”. In feminine societies, they share modest and caring views equally with men. In more masculine societies, women are somewhat assertive and competitive, but notably less than men. In other words, they still recognize a gap between male and female values
  8. Abbreviations: MDRO Multi-drug resistant organisms, IPC Infection prevention and control