Behavioural factors influencing hand hygiene practices across domestic, institutional and public community settings: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis.

IF 6.1 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Bethany A Caruso, Jedidiah S Snyder, Lilly A O'Brien, Erin LaFon, Kennedy Files, Dewan Muhammad Shoaib, Sridevi K Prasad, Hannah K Rogers, Oliver Cumming, Joanna Esteves Mills, Bruce Gordon, Marlene K Wolfe, Matthew C Freeman
{"title":"Behavioural factors influencing hand hygiene practices across domestic, institutional and public community settings: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis.","authors":"Bethany A Caruso, Jedidiah S Snyder, Lilly A O'Brien, Erin LaFon, Kennedy Files, Dewan Muhammad Shoaib, Sridevi K Prasad, Hannah K Rogers, Oliver Cumming, Joanna Esteves Mills, Bruce Gordon, Marlene K Wolfe, Matthew C Freeman","doi":"10.1136/bmjgh-2025-018927","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This systematic review sought to understand barriers and enablers to hand hygiene in community settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eligible studies addressed hand hygiene in a community setting, included a qualitative component, and were published in English between 1 January 1980 and 29 March 2023. Studies were excluded if in healthcare settings or were animal research. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, Cochrane Library, Global Index Medicus, Scopus, Public Affairs Information Service Index, WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing, UN Digital Library and World Bank eLibrary, manually searched relevant systematic reviews' reference lists, and consulted experts. We used MaxQDA software to code papers, using the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour) framework to classify barriers and enablers. We used thematic analysis to describe each COM-B subtheme identified, GRADE-CERQual to assess confidence in evidence for thematic findings and the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) to assess risk of study bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>80 studies were included; most took place in Africa (31; 39%), South-East Asia (31; 39%) and domestic settings (54; 68%). The mean MMAT score was 4.86 (good quality). Barriers and/or enablers were reported across all COM-B constructs and subconstructs. The most reported barriers aligned with Physical Opportunity (eg, soap availability), Reflective Motivation (eg, hand hygiene not prioritised) and Automatic Motivation (eg, no habit). In contrast, the most reported enablers aligned with Automatic Motivation (ie, habit) and Reflective Motivation (ie, perception of health risk).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Findings confirm that a lack of necessary resources for hand hygiene hinders practice, even when people are motivated. Results may explain why hand hygiene increases when there are acute health risks (eg, COVID-19), but decreases when risks are perceived to fade. The qualitative methodology used among the studies may have revealed a broader array of barriers and enablers than what might have been found by quantitative, researcher-driven studies, but representativeness may be limited. Evidence was also limited on alcohol-based hand rubs. Findings can inform the design of future hand hygiene initiatives.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42023429145.</p>","PeriodicalId":9137,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Global Health","volume":"10 Suppl 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12443170/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2025-018927","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This systematic review sought to understand barriers and enablers to hand hygiene in community settings.

Methods: Eligible studies addressed hand hygiene in a community setting, included a qualitative component, and were published in English between 1 January 1980 and 29 March 2023. Studies were excluded if in healthcare settings or were animal research. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, Cochrane Library, Global Index Medicus, Scopus, Public Affairs Information Service Index, WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing, UN Digital Library and World Bank eLibrary, manually searched relevant systematic reviews' reference lists, and consulted experts. We used MaxQDA software to code papers, using the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour) framework to classify barriers and enablers. We used thematic analysis to describe each COM-B subtheme identified, GRADE-CERQual to assess confidence in evidence for thematic findings and the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) to assess risk of study bias.

Results: 80 studies were included; most took place in Africa (31; 39%), South-East Asia (31; 39%) and domestic settings (54; 68%). The mean MMAT score was 4.86 (good quality). Barriers and/or enablers were reported across all COM-B constructs and subconstructs. The most reported barriers aligned with Physical Opportunity (eg, soap availability), Reflective Motivation (eg, hand hygiene not prioritised) and Automatic Motivation (eg, no habit). In contrast, the most reported enablers aligned with Automatic Motivation (ie, habit) and Reflective Motivation (ie, perception of health risk).

Conclusion: Findings confirm that a lack of necessary resources for hand hygiene hinders practice, even when people are motivated. Results may explain why hand hygiene increases when there are acute health risks (eg, COVID-19), but decreases when risks are perceived to fade. The qualitative methodology used among the studies may have revealed a broader array of barriers and enablers than what might have been found by quantitative, researcher-driven studies, but representativeness may be limited. Evidence was also limited on alcohol-based hand rubs. Findings can inform the design of future hand hygiene initiatives.

Prospero registration number: CRD42023429145.

Abstract Image

影响家庭、机构和公共社区手部卫生习惯的行为因素:系统综述和定性综合。
本系统综述旨在了解社区环境中手卫生的障碍和促进因素。方法:在1980年1月1日至2023年3月29日期间,对社区环境中的手卫生进行了合格的研究,包括定性成分,并以英文发表。排除在医疗机构或动物研究中的研究。检索PubMed、Web of Science、EMBASE、CINAHL、Global Health、Cochrane Library、Global Index Medicus、Scopus、Public Affairs Information Service Index、WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing、UN Digital Library和World Bank Library,人工检索相关系统综述的参考文献列表,并咨询专家。我们使用MaxQDA软件对论文进行编码,使用COM-B(能力、机会、动机和行为)框架对障碍和促成因素进行分类。我们使用专题分析来描述每个COM-B确定的子主题,GRADE-CERQual来评估专题发现证据的可信度,使用混合方法评估工具(MMAT)来评估研究偏倚的风险。结果:纳入80项研究;大多数发生在非洲(31.39%)、东南亚(31.39%)和国内(54.68%)。MMAT平均评分为4.86分(质量较好)。在所有COM-B构造和子构造中报告了障碍和/或促成因素。报告中最多的障碍与物理机会(例如,肥皂的可用性),反思动机(例如,没有优先考虑手部卫生)和自动动机(例如,没有习惯)相一致。相比之下,报告最多的促成因素与自动动机(即习惯)和反思动机(即对健康风险的感知)一致。结论:研究结果证实,即使人们有动机,缺乏必要的手部卫生资源也会阻碍实践。结果可以解释为什么当存在急性健康风险(例如COVID-19)时,手卫生会增加,但当风险被认为消退时,手卫生会减少。这些研究中使用的定性方法可能比研究人员驱动的定量研究揭示了更多的障碍和促进因素,但代表性可能有限。关于含酒精的洗手液的证据也有限。研究结果可以为未来手部卫生倡议的设计提供信息。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42023429145。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Global Health
BMJ Global Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
429
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Global Health is an online Open Access journal from BMJ that focuses on publishing high-quality peer-reviewed content pertinent to individuals engaged in global health, including policy makers, funders, researchers, clinicians, and frontline healthcare workers. The journal encompasses all facets of global health, with a special emphasis on submissions addressing underfunded areas such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It welcomes research across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialized studies. The journal also encourages opinionated discussions on controversial topics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信