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

Table 7 Nurses’ experiences with strategy components and correlations with changes in HH compliance

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*)

Correlation with changes in HH compliance within TDS^‡.
No significant correlations between scores on specific items and HH change scores.
^†State-of-the-art strategy^‡Team and leaders-directed strategy*p < .05; **p < .01.

ISSN: 1748-5908