Self-perceived hand hygiene practices among undergraduate nursing students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Limited research has investigated the hand hygiene practices of undergraduate nursing students. A descriptive self-report survey explored the predictors of self-perceived hand hygiene compliance using a convenience sample of 306 undergraduate nursing students enrolled at a southwestern Ontario university. Compliance was defined as the performance of hand hygiene at least 90% of the time in the moments both before and after direct patient contact. The self-reported compliance rate among study participants was 74.8%. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the independent predictors of hand hygiene compliance included concern about reprimand or discipline (odds ratio (OR) 4.324; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.465–12.758); motivation to protect patients from infection (OR 2.418; 95% CI 1.001–5.838); number of clinical placements (OR 0.815; 95% CI 0.702–0.947) and role modelling by the clinical instructor (OR 2.227; 95% CI 1.009–4.915). Other independent predictors were the perceived barriers of busyness (OR 0.231; 95% CI 0.126–0.423), forgetfulness (OR 0.356; 95% CI 0.186–0.678) and perceptions of alcohol rub-related skin damage (OR 0.163; 95% CI 0.070–0.380). The findings of this study provide research-based evidence that could be used by educators to understand better hand hygiene practices among undergraduate nursing students.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".