MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032538683 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002188

Attitudes and beliefs about hand hygiene among paediatric residents: a qualitative study

2012· article· en· W2032538683 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Devika Dixit, Reidar Hagtvedt, Trish Reay, Mark Ballermann, Sarah Forgie

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Alberta
FundersWomen and Children's Health Research InstituteChildren's Health Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineHygieneQualitative researchHealth careHabitNursingFamily medicinePathologyPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.390 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicInfection Control in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207