Attitudes and beliefs about hand hygiene among paediatric residents: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the knowledge that contaminated hands play an important role in the transmission of healthcare-associated pathogens, and that hand hygiene (HH) reduces the transmission of these organisms, healthcare worker's adherence with HH is poor. OBJECTIVE: To understand the common beliefs and attitudes held by paediatric residents about HH. DESIGN: Qualitative study design. SETTING: Tertiary care paediatric hospital in Edmonton, Canada. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted and themes were identified from interviews. PARTICIPANTS: 22 paediatric residents. RESULTS: Paediatric residents self-reported their HH adherence at 70-99% and perceived hospital-wide adherence at 45-80%. Four major themes were identified during interviews including the importance of role modelling, balancing time spent on HH with other competing factors, self-protection as a driving factor for HH and cues as an important part of habit that stimulate HH. CONCLUSIONS: Staff physicians were viewed as integral to initiating group HH events, but at times, the first person in the room acted as a role model for the rest of the group. In certain instances, such as a cardiac arrest, decreased adherence with HH was viewed as acceptable. Residents engaged in HH to protect their own health. Residents relied on personal cues, which they integrated into their own HH habit. Future HH adherence strategies should ensure that the physician training environments permit the formation of good attitudes and habits towards HH. There are no additional data available.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".