Social Marketing Analysis of 2 Years of Hand Hygiene Promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess published hand hygiene behavioral interventions that employed a social marketing framework and to recommend improvements to future interventions. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review by searching the PubMed database and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature for published articles about hand hygiene behavioral interventions in healthcare facilities, schools, and community settings. Our analysis included articles that describe multifaceted interventions and evaluated them with predefined social marketing benchmark criteria. RESULTS: Of 53 interventions analyzed in this review, 16 (30.2%) employed primary formative audience research, 5 (9.4%) incorporated social or behavioral theories, 27 (50.9%) employed segmentation and targeting of the audience, 44 (83.0%) used components of the "marketing mix," 3 (5.7%) considered the influence of competing behaviors, 7 (13.2%) cultivated relationships with the target audience, and 15 (28.3%) provided simple behavioral messages. Thirty-five (66.0%) of the interventions demonstrated a significant improvement in performance, but only 21 (39.6%) were considered to have a strong evaluative design. The median duration of the interventions was 8.0 months. CONCLUSIONS: From a social marketing perspective, the promotion of hand hygiene could be improved in several ways. The effectiveness of social marketing in hand hygiene promotion should be tested in future interventions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".