Alcohol-containing Hand Rubs: A Survey on Beliefs and Self-reported Practices of Muslim Nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although alcohol-containing liquid cleansers have been increasingly used by healthcare workers, their application is still suboptimal. This study was carried out to assess the beliefs and practices of Muslim nurses with respect to alcohol-based hand rub solutions (ABHRs). A total of 374 hospital nurses from a large tertiary referral medical centre in Southern Iran were recruited. Beliefs and self-reported practices toward ABHRs were measured using a structured questionnaire. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were shown to be satisfactory (Cronbach’s alpha value: 0.77 for beliefs and 0.86 for practices.) Overall, 16% of Muslim nurses believed that the use of ABHRs is religiously prohibited; approximately the same proportion of respondents believed that there may be concerns related to the fact that the alcoholic content of these hand rubs might be absorbed through the skin or respiratory tract. Overall, more than half of participants reported use of ABHRs before (60%) and after (75%) touching patients. Religious believers were less likely to report performing hand hygiene with ABHRs before patient contact. However, the total mean practice scores were not statistically different between religious believers and non-believers (t (372)=-0.88, P=0.413). Mean practice scores of nurses who had participated in hand hygiene training courses during the year before the study were higher than those who had not (t (372)=3.41, P< 0.001). The results of the present study showed that the practice of hand hygiene with alcohol-containing hand rubs is common among Iranian Muslim nurses and is not influenced by their religious beliefs toward alcohol.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".