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 variablesIndividual riskCollective risk
Number of participants with a Low/Neutral-risk perceptionaNumber of participants with a High-risk perceptionaUnivariate analysis (p value)Number of participants with a Low/Neutral-risk perceptionaNumber of participants with a High-risk perceptionaUnivariate analysis (p value)
Participants years of practice as an IPC specialist (n = 128)
 < 53 (7)13 (15)0.105 (12)11 (13)1.00
 ≥ 548 (94)64 (83) 38 (88)874 (87) 
Type of healthcare facility of participants (n = 128)
 Private hospitals1 (2)1 (1)0.860 (0)2 (2)0.34
 Public general hospital24 (47)40 (52) 25 (58)39 (46) 
 University hospital26 (51)36 (47) 18 (42)44 (52) 
Number of acute care beds (n = 128)
 < 30013 (25)16 (21)0.7210 (23)19 (22)0.97
 300–60011 (22)21 (27) 10 (23)22 (26) 
 ≥ 60027 (53)40 (52) 23 (54)44 (52) 
Epidemiology of MDROs the year prior the study
 Local number of MDRO bacteremia in 2015a, (n = 461)
  042 (19)64 (26)0.0115 (13)91 (26)0.001
  1-≤ 1081 (37)107 (44) 45 (38)143 (41) 
  > 1094 (43)74 (30) 57 (49)111 (32) 
 National invasive infections, Resistant isolate % (n = 495)
  < 1%33 (14)60 (23)0.00310 (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 level27 (53)49 (64)0.2222 (51)54 (64)0.18
 High level24 (47)28 (36) 21 (49)31 (36) 
Individual cognitive factors for compliance with AMR control measures
 Low level34 (67)46 (60)0.4227 (63)53 (62)0.96
 High level17 (33)31 (40) 16 (37)32 (38) 
Perception of the organization and work conditions in participants hospital
 Teamwork
  Low level43 (84)56 (73)0.1234 (79)65 (76)0.74
  High level8 (16)21 (27) 9 (21)20 (24) 
 Perception of management
  Low level42 (82)54 (70)0.1233 (77)63 (74)0.75
  High level9 (18)23 (30) 10 (23)22 (26) 
 Stress and chaos
  Low level41 (80)60 (78)0.7437 (86)64 (75)0.16
  High level10 (20)17 (22) 6 (14)21 (25) 
 Well-being and work conditions
  Low level37 (73)53 (69)0.6531 (72)59 (69)0.75
  High level14 (27)24 (31) 12 (28)26 (31) 
National socio-cultural factors
 Power Distance
  Low level36 (71)59 (77)0.4428 (65)67 (79)0.09
  High level15 (29)18 (23) 15 (35)18 (21) 
 Uncertainty Avoidance
  Low level41 (80)55 (71)0.2532 (74)64 (75)0.91
  High level10 (20)22 (29) 11 (26)21 (25) 
 Individualism
  Low level33 (65)57 (74)0.2628 (65)62 (73)0.36
  High level18 (35)20 (26) 15 (35)23 (27) 
Masculinity
  Low level34 (67)54 (70)0.6824 (60)64 (75)0.02
  High level17 (33)23 (30) 19 (40)21 (25) 
Socio-economic factors
 GDP per capita
  Low level41 (80)63 (82)0.8433 (80)71 (84)0.35
  High level10 (20)14 (18) 10 (20)14 (16) 
 Health expenditure per capita
  Low level27 (53)50 (65)0.1718 (42)59 (69)0.003
  High level24 (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