Hand Hygiene Awareness, Attitude and Compliance among House Officers in Public-Sector Dental Institutes- A Questionnaire-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the compliance of hand hygiene among dental health care professionals, to access different variables associated with hand hygiene and to identify possible ways of improving hand hygiene compliance. Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study was done to access the hand hygiene compliance, knowledge and practice of dental house officers in public dental institutes using a questionnaire developed by the authors. Descriptive statistics and chi square test were performed and a P value <0.05 was taken as significant. Results: 88 dental house officers working in different clinical departments participated in this study. 90% of the respondents believed that hand hygiene plays an important role in cross infection control. More than two-third were aware of all the steps recommended for hand washing, but more than half were not following them. 60% of the respondents wash their hands before and after touching each patient. However, 30% wash hands after each patient and 10% only wash hands before touching every patient. Fifty-five (55.8%) of the participants routinely use alcohol-based rub for hand hygiene. There was a significant difference regarding hand hygiene training among different departments. (p<0.001) Majority of house officers working in prosthodontics and surgery had not received hand hygiene training. Conclusion: Hand hygiene compliance is found to be acceptable when compared with developing countries. However, there was lack in knowledge. Dental graduates should be made aware of CDC and ADA guidelines. Better facilities and instruction for dental students should be encouraged. Hand hygiene quality needs to be improved on an urgent basis. Keywords: Hand Hygiene, Dental Health, Hand Washing, Bacteria
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".