| Literature DB >> 32054622 |
Vicki Erasmus1, Suzie Otto2, Emmely De Roos3, Rianne van Eijsden2, Margreet C Vos4, Alex Burdorf2, Ed van Beeck2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify the factors that influence the hand hygiene compliance of final year medical students, using a theoretical behavioural framework.Entities:
Keywords: behavior; compliance; habit; hand hygiene; medical students
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32054622 PMCID: PMC7045092 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029484
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Figure 1Extended theory of planned behaviour model. Constructs in grey boxes have been added.
Constructs of the questionnaire on behavioural determinants of hand hygiene with example questions and internal consistency (Cronbach's α)
| Construct | # items | Mean (SD) | Cronbach's α | Example |
| Knowledge | 5 | 4.3 (0.78) | – | five true/false questions about factual knowledge |
| Risk perception: | ||||
| Chance | 3 | 5.6 (1.7) | 0.76 | How big is the chance that an infection will occur |
| Severity self | 1 | 5.6 (2.3) | – | How severe will the consequences of an infection be for myself |
| Severity patient | 1 | 7.2 (1.5) | – | How severe will the consequences of an infection be for my patient |
| Attitudes: | ||||
| Beliefs about hand hygiene | 8 | 5.3 (0.81) | 0.76 | Hand hygiene is something I find important |
| Perceived outcomes | 5 | 5.0 (0.98) | 0.78 | If I follow that hand hygiene guidelines my patients will develop fewer infections |
| Social norms: | ||||
| Referent beliefs | 4 | 4.7 (1.2) | 0.91 | My superior thinks that I should always follow the hand hygiene guidelines |
| Descriptive norm | 8 | 3.5 (0.81) | 0.73 | My colleagues always follow the hand hygiene guidelines |
| Self-efficacy | 11 | 4.8 (0.94) | 0.89 | I am certain that I will be able to follow the hand hygiene guidelines |
| Habit | 12 | 4.7 (1.1) | 0.95 | Following the hand hygiene guidelines is something I do without thinking about it |
Behavioural correlates of hand hygiene compliance of medical students (n=313)
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||||
| β | R2 | β | R2 | R2change | β | R2 | R2change | |
| 0.043 | 0.270 | 0.189 | 0.401 | 0.131 | ||||
| Knowledge | 0.081 | 0.044 | 0.063 | |||||
| Risk perception: | ||||||||
| Chance | 0.101 | 0.049 | 0.010 | |||||
| Severity self | 0.105 | 0.041 | 0.002 | |||||
| Severity patient | 0.102 | 0.036 | 0.019 | |||||
| Attitude: | ||||||||
| Beliefs | 0.103 | −0.026 | ||||||
| Perceived outcomes | 0.231*** | 0.174** | ||||||
| Social norms: | ||||||||
| Referent beliefs | 0.003 | −0.001 | ||||||
| Descriptive norm | 0.063 | 0.037 | ||||||
| Self-efficacy | 0.306*** | 0.138* | ||||||
| Habit | 0.471*** | |||||||
Model 1: Knowledge + risk perception.
Model 2: Knowledge + risk perception + attitudes + social norms + self efficacy.
Model 3: Knowledge + risk perception + attitudes + social norms + self efficacy + habit.
*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.