Patient involvement in healthcare professionals’ hand hygiene compliance before and during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The need to educate the public about proper hand hygiene (HH) practices has gained prominence in light of the global epidemiological situation, particularly the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Aim of the research To examine the patients’ views of Health Care Providers’ (HCPs) HH compliance before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Material and methods The study was conducted through a diagnostic survey and involved 192 participants. Results According to 84.9% of respondents, HCPs’ HH is significant for patients’ health. This belief was held by most respondents both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (p = 0.018). The greater part of respondents (74.5%) believed that the observance of HH by HCPs prevents infections among patients. However, notably, during the pandemic, there was a significant increase in the proportion of respondents who associated HCPs’ HH practices with professionalism (45.4% vs. 63.2%, p = 0.014). Nurses were more likely to perform hand hygiene than other HCPs before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (p = 0.034). Conclusions During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients considered HCPs to be more professional or thought that medics were much more likely to perform HH before examining a patient or performing sterile procedures. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic affected the perception of nurses as those HCPs who perform hand hygiene more often than others. The pandemic did not change patients’ beliefs about the possibility of influencing the hygiene behaviour of HCPs. In contrast, patients observed that hand hygiene was promoted more often during the pandemic than before the pandemic.
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 | 0.013 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".