Handwashing among female college students

Drankiewicz, Danielle; Dundes, Lauren

doi:10.1067/mic.2003.6

Cited by 74 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result the rate of handwashing after use of public toilets was found to be 63.8% overall and this is a similar result [14] from the 63.4% in the study by Jung Jaeshim et al (2007) [13] and although it was found to be lower than the 83% from the investigation in the United States in 2005, there was a handwashing practice rate investigation that was done on only female students in an American university that showed 63% and it was similar to this study result [15]. In gender, among the total of 420 males, 268 (63.8%) subjects practiced handwashing and among 420 females, 342 (81.4%) subjects practiced handwashing and also in the study by Jung Jaeshim et al (2007) [13] it was found that 72.1% of females and 54.6% of whales practiced handwashing which showed that females practiced handwashing well.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

The Status of Handwashing with Soap and its Convergent related Factors in Korean People ; based on Korea National Handwashing Observation Survey, 2013

Hwang¹,

Lee

Yang³

et al. 2015

Journal of Digital Convergence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVESHandwashing rate of Korean people was lower than the rates of people in developed countries. The purpose of this study was to investigate handwashing rate, the factors influence people's handwashing behaviors during use of public restroom. METHODSThis study used the data of '2013 Korea National Handwashing Survey'. The survey was done through direct observation on the user of subway and train station restroom from September 10 to 12, 2013. RESULTSFactors influencing handwashing with soap were administrative region(OR 0.490-2.255), purpose of toilet use(urination 1.000, defecation 2.505), drying method after handwashing . CONCLUSIONSThe results of this study will provide the evidence data of national handwashing promotion activities for preventing and controlling communicable diseases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

The Status of Handwashing with Soap and its Convergent related Factors in Korean People ; based on Korea National Handwashing Observation Survey, 2013

Hwang¹,

Lee

Yang³

et al. 2015

Journal of Digital Convergence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[28][29][30][31] However, the structured observation still identified frequent handwashing with water alone and no handwashing in contradiction to handwashing promotion messages disseminated in Bangladesh. Another limitation of the observation study was that we did not collect separate data for ash and for soil as hand cleansing agents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Observed Practices and Perceived Advantages of Different Hand Cleansing Agents in Rural Bangladesh: Ash, Soil, and Soap

Nizame

Nasreen

Halder

et al. 2015

The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Bangladeshi communities have historically used ash and soil as handwashing agents. A structured observation study and qualitative interviews on the use of ash/soil and soap as handwashing agents were conducted in rural Bangladesh to help develop a handwashing promotion intervention. The observations were conducted among 1,000 randomly selected households from 36 districts. Fieldworkers observed people using ash/soil to wash their hand(s) on 13% of occasions after defecation and on 10% after cleaning a child's anus. This compares with 19% of people who used soap after defecation and 27% after cleaning a child who defecated. Using ash/soil or soap was rarely ( 1%) observed at other times recommended for handwashing. The qualitative study enrolled 24 households from three observation villages, where high usage of ash/soil for handwashing was detected. Most informants reported that ash/soil was used only for handwashing after fecal contact, and that ash/soil could clean hands as effectively as soap.

show abstract

“…[6][7][8] Directly observing handwashing behavior is intrusive, expensive, and generates higher prevalence of handwashing practices compared with when people do not know they are being observed. [9][10][11][12][13] Microbiological assessments of hand contamination are expensive and highly variable. [14][15][16] Proxy measures of handwashing (for example, the presence of soap or a place to wash hands) are easy to collect but are strongly associated with wealth, [17][18][19] and they may not be valid measures of actual behavior.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%