Reducing touching eyes, nose and mouth (‘T‐zone’) to reduce the spread of infectious disease: A prospective study of motivational, volitional and non‐reflective predictors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The route into the body for many pathogens is through the eyes, nose and mouth (i.e., the 'T-zone') via inhalation or fomite-based transfer during face touching. It is important to understand factors that are associated with touching the T-zone to inform preventive strategies. PURPOSE: To identify theory-informed predictors of intention to reduce facial 'T-zone' touching and self-reported 'T-zone' touching. METHODS: We conducted a nationally representative prospective questionnaire study of Canadians. Respondents were randomized to answer questions about touching their eyes, nose, or mouth with a questionnaire assessing 11 factors from an augmented Health Action Process Approach at baseline: intention, outcome expectancies, risk perception, individual severity, self-efficacy, action planning, coping planning, social support, automaticity, goal facilitation and stability of context. At 2-week follow-up, we assessed HAPA-based indicators of self-regulatory activities (awareness of standards, effort, self-monitoring) and self-reported behaviour (primary dependent variable). RESULTS: Of 656 Canadian adults recruited, 569 responded to follow-up (87% response rate). Across all areas of the 'T-zone', outcome expectancy was the strongest predictor of intention to reduce facial 'T-zone' touching, while self-efficacy was a significant predictor for only the eyes and mouth. Automaticity was the strongest predictor of behaviour at the 2-week follow-up. No sociodemographic or psychological factors predicted behaviour, with the exception of self-efficacy, which negatively predicted eye touching. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that focusing on reflective processes may increase intention to reduce 'T-zone' touching, while reducing actual 'T-zone' touching may require strategies that address the automatic nature of this behaviour.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".