2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.nepr.2018.12.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Increasing nursing students’ knowledge of evidence-based hand-hygiene: A quasi-experimental study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
21
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
2
21
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Observed handwashing rates for the SCPH-SP intervention group rose from 18% at baseline to 93% immediately post-intervention and were maintained at 72% 3 months after the intervention. These post-intervention gains compare favorably to those seen in other studies, which have had highly variable starting points (ranging from 4% to 50%) and outcomes (ranging from 25% to 84%) 68,14,19,41,42…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…Observed handwashing rates for the SCPH-SP intervention group rose from 18% at baseline to 93% immediately post-intervention and were maintained at 72% 3 months after the intervention. These post-intervention gains compare favorably to those seen in other studies, which have had highly variable starting points (ranging from 4% to 50%) and outcomes (ranging from 25% to 84%) 68,14,19,41,42…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…Feedback on the progress of nursing students ensures that students make progress towards achieving individual or group learning goals. To assess learning outcomes of hand hygiene, Korthonen et al (2019) developed a multi-component hand hygiene intervention (MCHHI). MCHHI has 17 questions, such as 'hand disinfection is not needed before donning gloves' and 'hand should be disinfected after touching the patient's immediate surroundings' (ibid).…”
Section: Step Perform Effective Deliverymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Three studies were undertaken in the Far East (Fisher et al 2010;Salmon et al 2013;Suen et al 2019), one in Germany (Scheithauer et al 2012), two in the United States (Lavigne and Curran 2015; Kornicki and Miller 2016) and one each in Australia (Kaur et al 2017), India (Chauhan et al 2019), Finland (Korhonen et al 2019) and Turkey (Kısacık et al 2021). Four studies were undertaken with medical students (Fisher et al 2010;Scheithauer et al 2012;Kaur et al 2017;Chauhan et al 2019), five with nursing students, (Salmon et al 2013;Kornicki andMiller 2016, Korhonen, Suen et al 2019;Kısacık et al 2021), and one with pharmacy students (Lavigne and Curran 2015).…”
Section: Included Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Five publications reported uncontrolled before-and-after study designs (Scheithauer et al 2012;Salmon et al 2013;Lavigne and Curran 2015;Kaur et al 2017;Chauhan et al 2019). One reported a nonrandomised trial (Korhonen et al 2019). Three publications reported randomised controlled trials (Kornicki and Miller 2016;Suen et al 2019;Kısacık et al 2021) and of these one was double-blinded (Kısacık et al 2021), one was a single-blinded trial in which data analysts were unaware of students' group allocation (Suen et al 2019) and in the third trial details of blinding were not apparent (Kornicki and Miller 2016).…”
Section: Included Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%