Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30975130›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

Epidemiological investigation on hand hygiene knowledge and behaviour: a cross-sectional study on gender disparity.

Lorna K P Suen, Zoe Y Y So, Simon K W Yeung, Kiki Y K Lo, Simon C Lam

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
16.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

86 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 162 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Nine-year risk stratification and prediction ofFrontiers in public health · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lorna K P SuenSquina International Centre for Infection Control, School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong, SAR, China. lorna.suen@polyu.edu.hk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0126-6674
Zoe Y Y SoSquina International Centre for Infection Control, School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong, SAR, China.
Simon K W YeungSquina International Centre for Infection Control, School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong, SAR, China.
Kiki Y K LoSquina International Centre for Infection Control, School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong, SAR, China.
Simon C LamSquina International Centre for Infection Control, School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong, SAR, China.
Hong Kong Polytechnic University · HK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe hand hygiene (HH) behaviour of the general public and its effect on illnesses are issues of growing importance. Gender is associated with HH behaviour. HH efficiency is a combination of washing efficiency and hand drying, but information about the knowledge level and HH behaviour of the general public is relatively limited. The findings of this cross-sectional study can substantially contribute to the understanding on the knowledge gap and public behaviour towards HH, thereby providing information on gender-specific health promotion activities and campaigns to improve HH compliance.

methodsAn epidemiological investigation by using a cross-sectional study design on the general public was conducted either via an online platform (SurveyMonkey) or paper-and-pen methods. The hand-washing and -drying questionnaire was used for data collection.

resultsA total of 815 valid questionnaires were collected. Majority of the respondents can differentiate the diseases that can or cannot be transmitted with poor HH, but the HH knowledge of the respondents was relatively inadequate. The female respondents had a significantly better HH knowledge than male respondents. The multiple regression analysis results also indicated that females had a significantly higher knowledge score by 0.288 towards HH than males after adjusting for age and education level. Although the majority of the respondents indicated that they performed hand cleaning under different specific situations, they admitted only using water instead of washing their hands with soap. More males than females dried their hands on their own clothing, whereas more females dried their hands through air evaporation. The average time of using warm hand dryers was generally inadequate amongst the respondents.

conclusionsBeing a female, middle-aged and having tertiary education level are protective factors to improve HH knowledge. Misconceptions related to the concepts associated with HH were noted amongst the public. Self-reported practice on hand drying methods indicated that additional education was needed. The findings of this study can provide information on gender-specific health promotion activities and creative campaigns to achieve sustained improvement in HH practices.

Indexed as

Hand DisinfectionHealth BehaviorHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHand HygieneHealth PromotionHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisSelf ReportSex FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultCross sectional studyGenderHand dryingHand hygieneHand washingKnowledgePublicSurveyWashrooms

Identifiers

PMID30975130
PMCPMC6460727
OpenAlexW2946710007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.