MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565465288 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofw172.1073

Improving Healthcare Worker Hand Hygiene Compliance: The Role of Behavior Change Theories

2016· article· en· W2565465288 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kimberly Corace, Jeffrey Smith, Tara K. MacDonald, Leandre R. Fabrigar, Andrea Chambers, Sam MacFarlane, Debbie Valickis, Gary Garber

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioQueen's UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHygieneCompliance (psychology)Healthcare workerHealth careNursingSocial psychologyPsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Healthcare worker (HCW) hand hygiene compliance is key to patient safety; however, compliance is suboptimal. Hand hygiene is a complex behavior, yet interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance have often ignored psychological theories of behavior change. This study developed a tool based on psychological theories of behavior change to identify modifiable motivators and barriers for HCW hand hygiene compliance. Methods. Data were collected from a multi-professional sample of HCWs (N = 100) from 10 long-term care facilities in Ontario, Canada, using a cross-sectional, qualitative and quantitative survey study. The survey tool assessed constructs from relevant psychological theories of behavior change, using Likert-scale and open-ended questions, to examine HCW hand hygiene motivators and barriers. Sociodemographics and self-reported hand hygiene compliance was also measured. Content analysis of the qualitative responses was performed using a codebook based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. Results. Qualitative and quantitative findings were concordant. Key motivators included (1) beliefs about consequences to self, family, or patients, (2) beliefs about social-professional role as a HCW, (3) HCW confidence in ability to perform hand hygiene, (4) social influences and norms, (5) environmental cues, and (6) habitual behavior. Key barriers included (1) resources (time pressure, work load), (2) environmental resources (lack of supplies), (3) attention, memory, and decisional processes (forgetfulness, prioritizing competing demands), and (4) beliefs about negative consequences to self (skin irritation). Knowledge about hand hygiene was not a key motivator or barrier for hand hygiene compliance. Conclusion. Psychological theories of behavior change provide a useful framework for understanding motivators and barriers for HCW hand hygiene compliance. While knowledge is necessary for behavior change, it is not sufficient. We identified several key behavioral constructs that can be targeted when developing novel hand hygiene interventions. This may increase the likelihood of a successful intervention, thereby improving hand hygiene compliance and patient safety and staff health. Disclosures. All authors: No reported disclosures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.365 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207