randomized controlled trial
Recently Published Documents


(FIVE YEARS 17538)



2022 ◽  
Vol 79 ◽  
pp. 101383
Geneviève A. Mageau ◽  
Mireille Joussemet ◽  
Jean-Michel Robichaud ◽  
Marie-Pier Larose ◽  
Fanny Grenier

2022 ◽  
Vol 179 ◽  
pp. 106121
Brian E. Roe ◽  
Danyi Qi ◽  
Robbie A. Beyl ◽  
Karissa E. Neubig ◽  
John W. Apolzan ◽  

2022 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 103299
Jake J. Lee ◽  
Andrew M. Peterson ◽  
Dorina Kallogjeri ◽  
Pawina Jiramongkolchai ◽  
Sara Kukuljan ◽  

ESMO Open ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 100351
S. Suppadungsuk ◽  
W. Phitakwatchara ◽  
T. Reungwetwattana ◽  
A. Pathumarak ◽  
B. Phakdeekitcharoen ◽  

2022 ◽  
Vol 240 ◽  
pp. 175-183
Menza Hon-wai Chu ◽  
Bien Lau ◽  
Joey Leung ◽  
Sheung Chun Chan ◽  
Betty Tang ◽  

2022 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Kelly Ann Schmidtke ◽  
Navneet Aujla ◽  
Tom Marshall ◽  
Abid Hussain ◽  
Gerard P. Hodgkinson ◽  

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” N = 2,582, “olfactory” N = 2,700, “visual” N = 2,488, and “both” N = 2,141. None of the priming conditions consistently increased hand hygiene. The lowest percentage compliance was observed in the “both” condition (7.8%), and the highest was observed in the “visual” condition (12.7%). The survey was completed by 97 staff (female = 81%). “Environmental resources” and “social influences” were the greatest barriers to staff cleaning their hands.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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document