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.