Skip to main content

Table 7 Nursesexperiences with strategy components and correlations with changes in HH compliance

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

Correlation with changes in HH compliance in all study groups   
Component Δ T1 to T2 Δ T1 to T3
Proposition S rho (p value) S rho (p value)
Performance feedback .315 (.015*) .347 (.007**)
I do know my ward’s HH performance.   
Social influence   .381 (.003**)
My colleagues support each other in performing HH.   
Our team members address each other in case of undesirable HH behaviour.   .414 (.001**)
Leadership   .293 (.025*)
My manager pays regular attention to the adherence of HH guidelines.   
HH is not a priority at our ward.   .261 (.046*)
My ward manager addresses barriers to enable HH as recommended.   .319 (.014*)
My ward manager holds team members accountable for HH performance.   .382 (.003**)
My ward manager encourages and motivates our team members to perform HH.   .352 (.006**)
Correlation with changes in HH compliance within SAS   
Education -.315 (.042*)  
I know exactly when to perform HH.   
Leadership   .387 (.011*)
My ward manager encourages and motivates our team members to perform HH.   
My ward manager holds team members accountable for HH performance.   .398 (.009**)
Social influence   .
Our team members address each other in case of undesirable HH behaviour.   .347 (.025*)
  1. Correlation with changes in HH compliance within TDS.
  2. No significant correlations between scores on specific items and HH change scores.
  3. State-of-the-art strategyTeam and leaders-directed strategy*p < .05; **p < .01.