Interventions to improve hand hygiene in community settings: a systematic review of theories, barriers and enablers, behaviour change techniques and hand hygiene station design features
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
This systematic review identified and examined the theories, barriers and enablers, behaviour change techniques (BCTs), and design features of interventions that have been leveraged to improve and sustain hand hygiene in community settings. It was conducted to support the development of the WHO Guidelines for Hand Hygiene in Community Settings.
Methods
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, Cochrane Library, Global Index Medicus, Scopus, PAIS Index, WHO IRIS, UN Digital Library and World Bank eLibrary for studies published through 29 March 2023, and consulted experts. Eligible studies had an intervention targeting hand hygiene behaviour, quantitatively measured hand hygiene practice, were published in English after 1 January 1980 and were set in non-healthcare community settings. Studies in healthcare settings, nursing homes or long-term care facilities were excluded. Two reviewers independently extracted data from each study and appraised study quality (Mixed Method Appraisal Tool).
Results
223 eligible studies (including 247 398 participants) met inclusion criteria, 82% of which were reported to be effective at improving hand hygiene. A minority (28%) used theory to inform intervention design. Interventions did not always address identified barriers or enablers. Most interventions addressed ‘action knowledge’ (eg, handwashing instruction), which was not a widely reported barrier or enabler. Interventions did not extensively address the physical environment (eg, resource availability) despite its importance for hand hygiene. Interventions leveraged a variety of BCT combinations, limiting comparability. We did not conduct a meta-analysis on effectiveness due to heterogeneity across studies. 10 studies evaluated hand hygiene station design adaptation, six examined variations in frequency or intensity of intervention delivery, and four focused on people with disabilities, revealing gaps in evidence.
Conclusions
Findings are limited by inconsistent intervention reporting but more consistent identification and leveraging of barriers and enablers would improve alignment of hand hygiene interventions to local context.
PROSPERO registration number
CRD42023429145.
