MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366350992 · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0001720

What are the barriers and facilitators to community handwashing with water and soap? A systematic review

2023· review· en· W4366350992 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Global Public Health · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of TorontoWestern University
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsSOAPMedicineSystematic reviewNursingEnvironmental healthMEDLINEPolitical scienceWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Handwashing with water and soap (HWWS) is an effective method of cleaning and disinfecting the surface of the hands. HWWS is effective in infection control and prevention transmission, such as in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, rates of handwashing compliance vary globally. This systematic review aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to community HWWS globally. We conducted a comprehensive search strategy in OVID Medline, OVID Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus using keywords and subject headings related to handwashing. Studies were excluded if they reported hand hygiene among healthcare or food service workers, considered the use of alcohol rubs, or involved an intervention in a healthcare or food preparation setting. The quality of eligible studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and data were extracted from the articles and analyzed using the Theoretical Domains Framework and inductive thematic analysis. The search strategy yielded a total of 11,696 studies, and 46 studies met the eligibility criteria. Study dates ranged from 2003 to 2020 and included 26 countries; the most frequently represented were Bangladesh, India, and Kenya. A total of 21 barriers and 23 facilitators to HWWS were identified and organized into the Theoretical Domains Framework. The most frequently cited domains were environmental context and resources, goals, and knowledge. Nine themes emerged from these barriers and facilitators: resource availability, cost and affordability, handwash station design and infrastructure, accessibility, gender roles, champions, health promotion, time management, and knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors. This review uncovered multiple barriers and facilitators around a determinant framework to observe and create an in-depth, multidimensional image of a community-based hand hygiene situation. New comprehensive interventions and implementation strategies can be developed using the findings to target the contextual barriers and facilitators to improve and increase HWWS rates. Stakeholders (i.e., practitioners, researchers, policymakers) can use the findings to revise, design, or evaluate new or existing projects, interventions, and policies to improve HWWS. Registration: A protocol for this systematic review was developed and uploaded onto the PROSPERO-International prospective register of systematic reviews database (Registration number: CRD42020221210).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it