| Literature DB >> 34055709 |
Ni Made Utami Dwipayanti1,2, Dinar Saurmauli Lubis1,2, Ngakan Putu Anom Harjana2,3.
Abstract
Hand hygiene practices are important not only during the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but also critical to prevent the possible spread of other infectious diseases. This study aims to examine the current hand hygiene behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic, post pandemic behavior intentions, and the relationship between behavior, psychosocial and contextual factors. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted from 28 May to 12 June 2020, with 896 valid responses obtained from Indonesian citizens over 18 years old. The survey questions included demographic characteristics, individual practices, risk perceptions, attitude, norm factors and ability factors related to hand hygiene during the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive analysis, chi square and multiple logistic regression tests were used to analyse the data. The results showed that 82.32% of female respondents and 73.37% male respondents reported handwashing practice 8 times or more per day during COVID-19 pandemic. Participants who perceived themselves at higher risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 (OR 7.08, 2.26-22.17), had less negative perception toward the practice (OR 1.93, 1.32-2.82), perceived handwashing as an effective preventive measure (OR 1.77, 1.23-2.54), were female (OR 1.71, 1.21-2.41), perceived a more supportive norm (OR 1.68, 1.15-2.44) and noticed more barriers in access to handwashing facilities (OR 1.57, 1.05-2.36) were more likely to engage in hand hygiene practice more frequently during the pandemic. In conclusion, the majority of respondents did increase their frequency of hand hygiene practices during COVID-19 pandemic. In line with previous studies in other pandemic contexts, sex, perceived susceptibility and effectiveness are important predictors of hand hygiene practices, which are similar to findings from previous studies in other pandemic contexts. Addressing social norm related to the perceived hand hygiene practices of friends and important people is a potential health promotion strategy by creating hand hygiene norms in the community.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; behavior; hand hygiene; online survey; psychosocial factors
Year: 2021 PMID: 34055709 PMCID: PMC8155304 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.621800
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Geographical distribution of respondents.
Figure 2Comparison between respondents and population distribution (bottom).
Socio-demographic characteristic of respondents.
| Settlement type | ||
| Rural | 246 | 27.46 |
| Urban | 650 | 72.54 |
| Sex | ||
| Female | 543 | 60.60 |
| Male | 353 | 39.40 |
| Age | ||
| Mean (SD) | 35.57 | 11.51 |
| <20 | 82 | 9.15 |
| 21–30 | 266 | 29.44 |
| 31–40 | 210 | 23.44 |
| 41–50 | 235 | 26.23 |
| >50 | 103 | 11.5 |
| Education | ||
| Primary | 1 | 0.11 |
| Secondary | 222 | 24.77 |
| University | 673 | 75.11 |
| Family income | ||
| <IDR 1million US$ 68.25 | 144 | 16.07 |
| IDR 1–2.5 million | 144 | 16.07 |
| >IDR 2.5–5 million | 236 | 26.34 |
| >IDR 5–10 million | 220 | 24.55 |
| >IDR 10 million | 152 | 16.96 |
| Occupation | ||
| Entrepreneur | 83 | 9.26 |
| Employee | 328 | 36.61 |
| Teacher | 15 | 1.67 |
| Health workers | 12 | 1.34 |
| Government employee | 195 | 21.76 |
| Students/unemployed | 263 | 29.35 |
| Drinking water sources | ||
| River, spring, rainwater | 8 | 0.89 |
| Drinking water vendor | 8 | 0.89 |
| Borehole | 428 | 47.77 |
| Pipeline | 452 | 50.45 |
| Water scarcity issue | ||
| Never | 601 | 67.08 |
| A couple of days/year | 196 | 21.88 |
| A couple of weeks/year | 59 | 6.58 |
| A couple of months/year | 40 | 4.46 |
| Provincial-level of COVID-19 cases | ||
| Low (<1%) | 90 | 10.04 |
| Medium (1-5%) | 449 | 50.11 |
| High (<5%) | 357 | 39.84 |
Differences of hygiene behavior between male and female.
| Hand hygiene frequencies before COVID-19 | 0.000 | ||||||
| <4 times/d | 143 | 40.51 | 131 | 24.13 | 274 | 30.58 | |
| 4– <8 times/d | 148 | 41.93 | 251 | 46.22 | 399 | 44.53 | |
| 8– <12 times/d | 53 | 15.01 | 129 | 23.76 | 182 | 20.31 | |
| >12 times/d | 9 | 2.55 | 32 | 5.89 | 41 | 4.58 | |
| Hand hygiene frequencies during COVID-19 | 0.005 | ||||||
| <4 times/d | 12 | 3.4 | 6 | 1.1 | 18 | 2.01 | |
| 4– <8 times/d | 82 | 23.23 | 90 | 16.57 | 172 | 19.2 | |
| 8– <12 times/d | 130 | 36.83 | 216 | 39.78 | 346 | 38.62 | |
| >12 times/d | 129 | 36.54 | 231 | 42.54 | 360 | 40.18 | |
| Reporting increase HH frequencies | 0.161 | ||||||
| Yes | 309 | 87.54 | 457 | 84.16 | 766 | 85.49 | |
| No | 44 | 12.46 | 86 | 15.84 | 130 | 14.51 | |
| Cleaning surface before COVID-19 | 0.000 | ||||||
| Never | 20 | 5.67 | 11 | 2.03 | 31 | 3.46 | |
| Rare | 127 | 35.98 | 150 | 27.62 | 277 | 30.92 | |
| Sometimes | 144 | 40.79 | 245 | 45.12 | 389 | 43.42 | |
| Often | 51 | 14.45 | 120 | 22.1 | 171 | 19.08 | |
| Always | 11 | 3.12 | 17 | 3.13 | 28 | 19.08 | |
| Cleaning surface during COVID-19 | 0.006 | ||||||
| Never | 5 | 1.42 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0.56 | |
| Rare | 17 | 4.82 | 18 | 3.31 | 35 | 3.91 | |
| Sometimes | 80 | 22.66 | 96 | 17.68 | 176 | 19.64 | |
| Often | 196 | 55.52 | 321 | 59.12 | 517 | 57.7 | |
| Always | 55 | 5.58 | 108 | 19.89 | 163 | 18.19 | |
| Intention to keep hygiene behavior post COVID | 0.264 | ||||||
| Low | 20 | 5.7 | 22 | 4.1 | 42 | 4.7 | |
| High | 333 | 94.3 | 521 | 95.9 | 854 | 95.3 | |
Total responses = 896; Significance of independence of samples indicated by Pearson Chi-Square test: p-value < 0.05.
Figure 3Respondents reporting hand hygiene practice at particular time with five different categories of frequencies.
Figure 4Change in hygiene frequencies from before to during COVID-19 pandemic for male group (left) and female group (right).
Respondents' perceptions toward hand washing behavior as preventive measure to contract COVID-19.
| Perceived susceptibility | 0.047 | ||||||
| Very low risk | 36 | 10.2 | 45 | 8.3 | 81 | 9.0 | |
| Low risk | 69 | 19.5 | 130 | 23.9 | 199 | 22.2 | |
| Medium risk | 117 | 33.1 | 202 | 37.2 | 319 | 35.6 | |
| High risk | 104 | 29.5 | 117 | 21.5 | 221 | 24.7 | |
| Very high risk | 27 | 7.6 | 49 | 9.0 | 76 | 8.5 | |
| Perceived severity | 0.660 | ||||||
| No symptom | 70 | 19.8 | 123 | 22.7 | 193 | 21.5 | |
| Mild symptom | 151 | 42.8 | 238 | 43.8 | 389 | 43.4 | |
| Symptom that can affect daily activities | 103 | 29.2 | 141 | 26.0 | 244 | 27.2 | |
| Severe consequences | 19 | 5.4 | 23 | 4.2 | 42 | 4.7 | |
| Fatality | 10 | 2.8 | 18 | 3.3 | 28 | 3.1 | |
| Perceived effectiveness | 0.306 | ||||||
| Not effective | 144 | 40.8 | 203 | 37.4 | 347 | 38.7 | |
| Effective | 209 | 59.2 | 340 | 62.6 | 549 | 61.3 | |
| Negative attitude | 0.644 | ||||||
| More negative attitude | 84 | 23.8 | 122 | 22.5 | 206 | 23.0 | |
| Less negative attitude | 269 | 76.2 | 421 | 77.5 | 690 | 77.0 | |
| Perceived norm | 0.250 | ||||||
| Less positive norm | 192 | 54.4 | 274 | 50.5 | 466 | 52.0 | |
| More positive norm | 161 | 45.6 | 269 | 49.5 | 430 | 48.0 | |
| Perceived barriers | 0.512 | ||||||
| Frequent encounter barriers | 100 | 28.3 | 143 | 26.3 | 243 | 27.1 | |
| Rarely encounter barriers | 253 | 71.7 | 400 | 73.7 | 653 | 72.9 | |
Total responses = 896; Significance of independence of samples indicated by Pearson Chi-Square test : p-value < 0.05.
Factors influencing more frequent Hand Hygiene Practice (8 or more times per day) during COVID-19 pandemic.
| Sex | ||||||
| Male | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Female | 1.69 | 1.22 | 2.33 | 1.71 | 1.21 | 2.41 |
| Age | ||||||
| <20 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 21–30 | 1.33 | 0.77 | 2.32 | 1.17 | 0.61 | 2.25 |
| 31–40 | 2.07 | 1.14 | 3.76 | 1.60 | 0.78 | 3.29 |
| 41–50 | 1.90 | 1.06 | 3.40 | 1.54 | 0.75 | 3.17 |
| >50 | 1.23 | 0.64 | 2.35 | 1.08 | 0.49 | 2.41 |
| Education | ||||||
| Up to high school | 1 | 1 | ||||
| University | 1.35 | 0.94 | 1.93 | 1.08 | 0.68 | 1.70 |
| Perceived Susceptibility | ||||||
| Very low risk | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Low risk | 1.23 | 0.70 | 2.17 | 1.66 | 0.89 | 3.11 |
| Mild risk | 1.68 | 0.98 | 2.89 | 2.18 | 1.19 | 4.00 |
| High risk | 2.02 | 1.13 | 3.62 | 2.21 | 1.15 | 4.25 |
| Very high risk | 6.34 | 2.28 | 17.62 | 7.08 | 2.26 | 22.17 |
| Perceived severity | ||||||
| No Symptom | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Mild symptom | 0.76 | 0.50 | 1.17 | 0.78 | 0.49 | 1.25 |
| Symptom that limit daily life | 0.87 | 0.54 | 1.40 | 0.70 | 0.41 | 1.20 |
| Severe symptom | 0.98 | 0.42 | 2.28 | 0.70 | 0.29 | 1.74 |
| Fatal (death) | 1.06 | 0.38 | 2.96 | 0.38 | 0.12 | 1.25 |
| Perceived effectiveness | ||||||
| Not effective or not sure | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Effective | 2.30 | 1.67 | 3.19 | 1.77 | 1.23 | 2.54 |
| Negative attitude | ||||||
| More negative | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Less negative | 2.37 | 1.67 | 3.36 | 1.93 | 1.32 | 2.82 |
| Perceived norm | ||||||
| Less supportive norm | 1 | 1 | ||||
| More supportive norm | 2.18 | 1.56 | 3.05 | 1.68 | 1.15 | 2.44 |
| Perceived barriers | ||||||
| Frequent encounter barrier | 1.30 | 0.90 | 1.90 | 1.57 | 1.05 | 2.36 |
| Rarely encounter barrier | 1 | 1 | ||||
Statistics indicate significance of OR with p-value < 0.05. The p-value of Hosmer–Lameshow test was 0.705 and the classification table shows that model provide 79% correct prediction.