Application of the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify factors that influence hand hygiene compliance in long-term care
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Healthcare worker (HCW) hand hygiene compliance is key to patient safety; however, compliance is suboptimal. Nevertheless hand hygiene compliance is not well studied in the long-term care setting. AIM: To apply a behaviour change framework, the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), to identify modifiable facilitators and barriers for HCW hand hygiene compliance in long-term care settings. METHODS: HCW hand hygiene compliance facilitators and barriers were examined using a questionnaire for HCWs from long-term care homes in Ontario, Canada. The questionnaire was informed by the TDF, which is based on a synthesis of constructs from a number of relevant psychological theories of behaviour change. FINDINGS: Barriers identified from the questionnaire aligned with the TDF domain environmental context and resources (time pressure, workload, and environmental controls). Facilitators identified from questionnaire results aligned with the TDF domains social/professional role and identity (it is what is expected of HCWs), and beliefs about consequences (risk of transmission of micro-organisms to self or others). CONCLUSION: There are several barriers to hand hygiene compliance that persist in long-term care. A behaviour change theory-informed framework such as the TDF can be helpful to identify those barriers. This study identified several key behavioural constructs aligned with the TDF that can be targeted when developing novel hand hygiene 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it