Understanding Practice: Factors That Influence Physician Hand Hygiene Compliance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify the behavioral determinants--both barriers and enablers--that may impact physician hand hygiene compliance. DESIGN: A qualitative study involving semistructured key informant interviews with staff physicians and residents. SETTING: An urban, 1,100-bed multisite tertiary care Canadian hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 42 staff physicians and residents in internal medicine and surgery. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted using an interview guide that was based on the theoretical domains framework (TDF), a behavior change framework comprised of 14 theoretical domains that explain health-related behavior change. Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic content analysis involving a systematic 3-step approach: coding, generation of specific beliefs, and identification of relevant TDF domains. RESULTS: Similar determinants were reported by staff physicians and residents and between medicine and surgery. A total of 53 specific beliefs from 9 theoretical domains were identified as relevant to physician hand hygiene compliance. The 9 relevant domains were knowledge; skills; beliefs about capabilities; beliefs about consequences; goals; memory, attention, and decision processes; environmental context and resources; social professional role and identity; and social influences. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several key determinants that physicians believe influence whether and when they practice hand hygiene at work. These beliefs identify potential individual, team, and organization targets for behavior change interventions to improve physician hand hygiene compliance.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it