Objective To provide an overview of country settings, study designs, pathogens, response stage, outcomes and monitoring periods that were described in studies that may provide evidence about effectiveness of training in infection prevention and control programmes, for health or social care workers. Methods A systematic review was undertaken to find and summarise aspects of relevant studies published from 2000-2023. Eligible studies had to have pre and post evaluation or post-intervention evaluation in case of trials only. Eligible outcomes were knowledge; adherence/compliance; skills or practice; incidence; case-related mortality. Eligible infectious diseases were those caused by any single cell biological entity (eg virus or protozoa) where vectors were not the primary transmission pathway. Infection prevention settings had to be health/social care (not community or environmental), and participants had to be health or social care staff or trainee staff. Articles from three bibliographic databases were dual-screened independently and key data were extracted and verified. Findings are summarised quantitatively and narratively. Findings Included studies numbered 210, of which 187 were pre-post study design and 23 had concurrent comparator arms. Most studies (n=128) were undertaken in high income country settings, especially in the USA (n=31), and 47 were in European Union member countries. There were 20 studies based in China, and 5 in India. Frequency of phases were preparedness (n=47), readiness (n=29), response (n=146), and recovery (n=4). The most commonly mentioned pathogens were SARS-CoV-2 (n=73) and anti-microbial-resistant organisms (AMROs, n=54). Most settings were health care centres but long-term care facilities (n=13) and healthcare delivered by emergency responders (3) were also mentioned. Dental professionals or students were in just 3 studies and 10 studies had trainee health professionals as participants. Conclusion The research questions for which the most evidence is likely to exist about effectiveness of IPC training of health care workers would be in response phase in high income countries, especially if the relevant pathogens were AMROs or SARS-CoV-2. In contrast, the prospects are not good for finding evidence that could deliver confident conclusions about optimal IPC training programmes in low income countries, for most specific diseases (eg. cholera or tuberculosis) or in non-response phases.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

JB and ICS were commissioned and funded by the World Health Organization to create the initial bibliographic database used to undertake this systematic review. JB and ICS were also funded by the UK NHIR Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response at Kings College London in partnership with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) in collaboration with the University of East Anglia. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the WHO, NHS, NIHR, UEA, UK Department of Health or UKHSA.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Ethical approval This research was exempt from needing ethics approval because the (anonymised and aggregated) information we analyse and describe was already in the public domain.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors