Trial reportFrontiers in public health2021
A Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial of Priming Interventions to Increase Hand Hygiene at Ward Entrances.
Trial report in Frontiers in public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Olfactory Cues and Patient Safety Behavior in Virtual Reality Medical Simulation: Controlled Trial.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- A helping hand: Applying behavioural science and co-design methodology to improve hand hygiene compliance in the hospital setting.PloS one · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Efficiency of Hand Hygiene Technique with Hydroalcoholic Solution by Image Color Summarize.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResearch conducted in the United States suggests that two primes (citrus smells and pictures of a person's eyes) can increase hand gel dispenser use on the day they are introduced in hospital. The current study, conducted at a hospital in the United Kingdom, evaluated the effectiveness of these primes, both in isolation and in combination, at the entry way to four separate wards, over a longer duration than the previous work.
methodsA crossover randomized controlled trial was conducted. Four wards were allocated for 6 weeks of observation to each of four conditions, including "control," "olfactory," "visual," or "both" (i.e., "olfactory" and "visual" combined). It was hypothesized that hand hygiene compliance would be greater in all priming conditions relative to the control condition. The primary outcome was whether people used the gel dispenser when they entered the wards. After the trial, a follow up survey of staff at the same hospital assessed the barriers to, and facilitators of, hand hygiene compliance. The trial data were analyzed using regression techniques and the survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
resultsThe total number of individuals observed in the trial was 9,811 (female = 61%), with similar numbers across conditions, including "control"
conclusionsTaken together, the current findings suggest that the olfactory and visual priming interventions investigated do not influence hand hygiene consistently. To increase the likelihood of such interventions succeeding, future research should focus on prospectively determined mechanisms of action.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.