Understanding hand hygiene behavior in a pediatric oncology unit in a low- to mid-income country
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: A qualitative method study identified perceived barriers and motivations for hand hygiene (HH) practice in a pediatric oncology unit in Guatemala. METHODS: Data collection included focus groups with participants grouped by job type. Focus group responses were assessed using content analysis. Participants included nurse supervisors, registered nurses, auxiliary nurses, physicians, and auxiliary and support staff and volunteers (n=55). RESULTS: Themes emerged from participant responses, providing a framework to develop and implement targeted interventions to improve HH. Perceived barriers to HH included the following themes: inconsistent HH supplies, time pressures related to workload, lack of HH training for some healthcare workers and patients' families; negative social reactions after reminding others to practice HH; and cultural traditions shaping patients' families' hygiene. Motivations for HH practice included two themes: patient protection and self-protection. Some of these themes were unique to this culture and clinical setting. Recommendations included a preference for visual aids rather than verbal reminders (e.g. HH promotion signage, demonstrations of HH), and disclosure of compliance rates. CONCLUSIONS: The research team concluded that the main barriers and motivations for HH, including culturally-unique and site-specific factors, were identified and used for subsequent HH compliance improvement such as education. Intervention post focus group concentrated in HH education of healthcare providers using e-learning methodology.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".