The Impact of Requiring Completion of an Online Infection Control Course on Health Professionals’ Intentions to Comply with Infection Control Guidelines: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ensuring good infection control practice in health care facilities is a constant concern, yet evidence shows that the compliance of health care professionals with proper procedures is lacking, despite the existence of guidelines and training programs. An online infection control module was developed to provide ready access to training. Controversy exists about whether successfully completing such a course should be mandatory or strongly encouraged for all health care professionals. The objective of the present study was to compare the perception of safety culture and intention to comply with infection control guidelines in professionals who were required by their supervisors to take the course, and those who did so voluntarily. METHODS: Survey responses on learning environment, safety climate and intention to comply with infection control guidelines in health care professionals who were required to take the course (supervisor-required group [n=143]) and those who took the same course voluntarily (voluntary group [n=105]) were compared. Because randomization was thought to be too difficult to implement in the policy context in which the study was conducted, significant differences between the two groups were taken into account in the analysis. RESULTS: Those required to take the course had a significantly better perception of the institutional safety climate (P<0.001), and had a higher reported intention to comply with infection control guidelines (P=0.040) than those who took the course voluntarily. DISCUSSION: Requiring that staff complete a 30 min interactive online infection control module increased their intention to comply with infection control guidelines compared with those who voluntarily accessed this material based on promotional material. Consideration should be given to making the successful completion of an online infection control module a requirement for all health care professionals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".