Self-reported hand hygiene perceptions and barriers among companion animal veterinary clinic personnel in Ontario, Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to describe the perceived importance of and barriers to hand hygiene among companion animal clinic staff. An anonymous, voluntary written questionnaire was completed by 356 of approximately 578 individuals (62%) from 49/51 clinics. On a scale of 1 (not important) to 7 (very important), the percentage of respondents who rated hand hygiene as a 5 or higher was at least 82% in all clinical scenarios queried. The most frequently reported reason for not performing hand hygiene was forgetting to do so (40%, 141/353). Specific discussion of hand hygiene practices at work was recalled by 32% (114/354) of respondents. Although veterinary staff seem to recognize the importance of hand hygiene, it should be emphasized more during staff training. Other barriers including time constraints and skin irritation should also be addressed, possibly through increased access to and use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".