Skip to main content

Table 5 Changes in HH compliance in participating hospitals during study period

From: Explaining the effects of two different strategies for promoting hand hygiene in hospital nurses: a process evaluation alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial

Intention-to-treat analysis T1 T2 T3
baseline post intervention follow-up
Strategy SAS 21.8% (37 wards) 40.4% (37 wards) 45.9% (37 wards)
Δ T1-T2 18.6% Δ T1-T3 24.1%
Strategy TDS 19.1% (30 wards) 53.1% (30 wards) 52.1% (30 wards)
Δ T1-T2 34.0% Δ T1-T3 33.0%
Groups compared    
TDS vs. SAS f=0.465 f=19.409 f=1.781
ANOVA p=0.498 p=0.000** p=0.187*
As-received analysis T1 T2 T3
baseline post intervention follow-up
Strategy SAS 21.5% (47 wards) 40.7% (47 wards) 44.1% (47 wards)
Δ T1-T2 19.2% Δ T1-T3 22.6%
Strategy TDS 20.7% (20 wards) 58.6% (20 wards) 59.5% (20 wards)
Δ T1-T2 37.9% Δ T1-T3 38.8%
Groups compared    
TDS vs. SAS f=0.001 f=40.304 f=10.187
ANOVA p=0.978 p=0.000** p=0.002**
Groups compared    
SAS groups randomised to TDS (n=10) vs SAS groups randomised to SAS (n= 37) p=0.322 p=0.650 p=0.224
T-test    
  1. Compliance with HH prescriptions expressed as a percentage of all relevant opportunities based on the average compliance per ward.
  2. State-of-the-art strategy.
  3. Team and leaders-directed strategy.
  4. *p < .05; **p < .01.