Immediate influences of hygiene education sessions on handwashing behaviors of selected Nepali students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Appropriate handwashing can prevent 50–70% of water and foodborne infections. However, schoolchildren who are in the formative stage of life, particularly in low-income countries like Nepal, are deprived of such a lifesaving skill. This study investigates the effectiveness of a school-based participatory action research intervention to promote handwashing with soap among basic level community school students in Nepal. Teachers, the school management committee, the participatory action research committee, and child-club members actively participated in designing and implementing the intervention. This study employed a semi-structured interview with the headteacher, five focus group discussions, and spot observations during 50 handwashing with soap events involving students, to collect the data. This study assesses the handwashing situation of students before and after the intervention. As part of the intervention, participatory teaching methods such as singing, drawing, showing a video, games, and demonstrations were used. Findings from basic level students who actively participated in hygiene sessions and increased their handwashing with soap before meals and after toilet use were used as a comparison to baseline. Participants reported that the intervention was perceived positively, pragmatic, and cost-effective. This intervention study concluded that handwashing behaviors improved because of the influence of sensitization sessions and demonstrations about handwashing. However, some predominant issues in the teaching of handwashing practices include limited hygiene contents in the curriculum and the practical use of teaching and learning activities. The lack of availability of soap at handwashing stations is the main barrier in sustaining handwashing behaviors in schoolchildren.
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".