Infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions are multifactorial and are used to prevent healthcare-associated infections in healthcare facilities. However, patient views and enabling patient and public involvement (PPI) in their development has been minimal.

This systematic review aims to identify peer-reviewed publications reporting patient satisfaction outcomes in the context of IPC interventions, to document the methods used to assess patient satisfaction and to conduct a meta-analysis on reported satisfaction outcomes.

Systematic review and meta-analysis following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and the PRISMA statement, with oversight from a steering group including PPI partners. Studies in peer-reviewed journals were included based on eligibility criteria.

MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched in June 2024.

Included studies investigated satisfaction among hospitalised patients in acute care settings following IPC measures, including isolation, cohorting, screening, hand hygiene, antimicrobial stewardship, patient flagging, education, personal protective equipment use, visiting restrictions and treatment delays

Titles and abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers; disagreements were resolved by a third. Study quality was assessed using the JBI manual for evidence synthesis. A meta-analysis was conducted where four or more studies used comparable designs and methods within the same areas of IPC, with heterogeneity evaluated using Cochran’s Q statistic and I² and pooled estimates calculated with 95% CIs using the Wilson (score) method.

Twenty-nine studies were identified. Among IPC measures, isolation precautions were the most commonly reported intervention (11 studies, 38%). The Likert scale was the predominant assessment method (13 studies, 45%). Patient satisfaction with IPC interventions ranged from 58.3% to 97.2%. Meta-analysis of four studies using the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey showed substantial heterogeneity (I², 55%, p=0.08) and a pooled patient satisfaction level of 69% (95% CI 63.6% to 74.4%) for isolation precautions.

Sixty-nine percent of isolated patients reported satisfaction with their care. Patient satisfaction with IPC interventions varies widely, highlighting limitations in current measurement approaches. Strengthening PPI in the design and evaluation of satisfaction measures is essential to capture meaningful data and improvements in IPC programmes.

IS 2024 CRD42024558385.