↓ Skip to main content

National observational study to evaluate the “cleanyourhands” campaign (NOSEC): a questionnaire based study of national implementation

Overview of attention for article published in Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
National observational study to evaluate the “cleanyourhands” campaign (NOSEC): a questionnaire based study of national implementation
Published in
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13756-015-0077-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher Fuller, Joanne Savage, Barry Cookson, Andrew Hayward, Ben Cooper, Georgia Duckworth, Susan Michie, Annette Jeanes, Louise Teare, Andre Charlett, Sheldon Paul Stone

Abstract

The number of national hand-hygiene campaigns has increased recently, following the World Health Organisation's (WHO) "Save Lives: clean your hands" initiative (2009), which offers hospitals a multi-component hand-hygiene intervention. The number of campaigns to be evaluated remains small. Most evaluations focus on consumption of alcohol hand rub (AHR). We are not aware of any evaluation reporting implementation of all campaign components. In a previously published report, we evaluated the effects of the English and Welsh cleanyourhands campaign (2004-8) on procurement of AHR and soap, and on selected healthcare associated infections. We now report on the implementation of each individual campaign component: provision of bedside AHR, ward posters, patient empowerment materials, audit and feedback, and guidance to secure institutional engagement. Setting: all 189 acute National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England and Wales (December 2005-June 2008). Six postal questionnaires (five voluntary, one mandatory) were distributed to infection control teams six-monthly from 6 to 36 months post roll-out. Selection and attrition bias were measured. Response rates fell from 134 (71 %) at 6 months to 82 (44 %) at 30 months, rising to 167 (90 %) for the final mandatory one (36 months). There was no evidence of attrition or selection bias. Hospitals reported widespread early implementation of bedside AHR and posters and a gradual rise in audit. At 36 months, 90 % of respondents reported the campaign to be a top hospital priority, with implementation of AHR, posters and audit reported by 96 %, 97 % and 91 % respectively. Patient empowerment was less successful. The study suggests that all campaign components, apart from patient empowerment, were widely implemented and sustained. It supports previous work suggesting that adequate piloting, strong governmental support, refreshment of campaigns, and sufficient time to engage institutions help secure sustained implementation of a campaign's key components. The results should encourage countries wishing to launch coordinated national campaigns for hospitals to participate in the WHO's "Save Lives" initiative, which offers hospitals a similar multi-component intervention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 36 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 12 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 16%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 15 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 February 2016.
All research outputs
#2,017,502
of 25,250,629 outputs
Outputs from Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
#221
of 1,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,933
of 398,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
#12
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,250,629 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,445 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 398,872 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.