IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0202014.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to make hand hygiene interventions more attractive to nurses: A discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Qian Zhao
  • Miles M Yang
  • Yu-Ying Huang
  • Wenlin Chen

Abstract

Background: Better understanding of the characteristics of interventions which are attractive to nurses is required in order to implement effective hand hygiene interventions. Methods: The intervention characteristics were derived from diffusion of innovation theory (DIT): relative advantage, compatibility, simplicity, trialability, and observability. To identify nurses’ preferences for the five characteristics, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted. Participants were nurses working at Taiwanese tertiary care hospitals selected through stratified sampling. In addition, the hand hygiene moment (before or after patient contact) was taken into consideration in the DCE to investigate whether nurses’ preferences for the intervention characteristics were the same at different hand hygiene moments. Results: This survey was conducted between 1 October and 31 December 2014. Among 200 nurses from three Taiwanese tertiary care hospitals, significant preferences for the five intervention characteristics were observed. That is, when an intervention makes the hand hygiene activity more convenient (p

Suggested Citation

  • Qian Zhao & Miles M Yang & Yu-Ying Huang & Wenlin Chen, 2018. "How to make hand hygiene interventions more attractive to nurses: A discrete choice experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-11, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0202014
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202014
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202014&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0202014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luis Huicho & J Jaime Miranda & Francisco Diez-Canseco & Claudia Lema & Andrés G Lescano & Mylene Lagarde & Duane Blaauw, 2012. "Job Preferences of Nurses and Midwives for Taking Up a Rural Job in Peru: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Hjelmgren, Jonas & Anell, Anders, 2007. "Population preferences and choice of primary care models: A discrete choice experiment in Sweden," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(2-3), pages 314-322, October.
    3. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    2. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Hess, Stephane & Kjær, Trine, 2016. "Asymmetric information and user orientation in general practice: Exploring the agency relationship in a best–worst scaling study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 115-130.
    3. Chiara Seghieri & Alessandro Mengoni & Sabina Nuti, 2014. "Applying discrete choice modelling in a priority setting: an investigation of public preferences for primary care models," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(7), pages 773-785, September.
    4. Andriy Danyliv & Milena Pavlova & Irena Gryga & Wim Groot, 2015. "Preferences for physician services in Ukraine: a discrete choice experiment," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 346-365, October.
    5. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    6. Ting Li & Robert J. Kauffman & Eric van Heck & Peter Vervest & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2014. "Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 345-363, June.
    7. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Andrea N. Natsky & Andrew Vakulin & Ching Li Chai-Coetzer & R. Doug McEvoy & Robert J. Adams & Billingsley Kaambwa, 2022. "Preferred Attributes of Care Pathways for Obstructive Sleep Apnoea from the Perspective of Diagnosed Patients and High-Risk Individuals: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 597-607, July.
    9. Stephanie Knox & Rosalie Viney & Deborah Street & Marion Haas & Denzil Fiebig & Edith Weisberg & Deborah Bateson, 2012. "What’s Good and Bad About Contraceptive Products?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1187-1202, December.
    10. Dunsch, Felipe Alexander & Velenyi, Edit, 2019. "Job Preferences of Frontline Health Workers in Ghana - A Discrete Choice Experiment," SocArXiv bqx5k, Center for Open Science.
    11. Richard Norman & Jane Hall & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Efficiency And Equity: A Stated Preference Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 568-581, May.
    12. Feucht, Yvonne & Zander, Katrin, 2017. "Consumers’ attitudes on carbon footprint labelling. Results of the SUSDIET project," Thünen Working Paper 266396, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (vTI), Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    13. Ahgren, Bengt, 2010. "Competition and integration in Swedish health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 91-97, July.
    14. Marva Stithou & Yiannis Kountouris & Phoebe Koundouri, 2011. "A Choice Experiments Application in Transport Infrastructure: A case study on travel time savings, accidents and pollution reduction," DEOS Working Papers 1116, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    15. Michael P. Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "The Structure of Consumer Taste Heterogeneity in Revealed vs. Stated Preference Data," Economics Papers 2013-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    16. Jiang, Shan & Gu, Yuanyuan & Yang, Fan & Wu, Tao & Wang, Hui & Cutler, Henry & Zhang, Lufa, 2020. "Tertiary hospitals or community clinics? An enquiry into the factors affecting patients' choice for healthcare facilities in urban China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    17. Richard Norman & Gisselle Gallego, 2008. "Equity weights for economic evaluation: An Australian Discrete Choice Experiment, CHERE Working Paper 2008/5," Working Papers 2008/5, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    18. Shehely Parvin & Paul Wang & Jashim Uddin, 2016. "Using best-worst scaling method to examine consumers’ value preferences: A multidimensional perspective," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1199110-119, December.
    19. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Stated preferences over job characteristics: A panel study," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 43-82, February.
    20. Kaambwa, Billingsley & Lancsar, Emily & McCaffrey, Nicola & Chen, Gang & Gill, Liz & Cameron, Ian D. & Crotty, Maria & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2015. "Investigating consumers' and informal carers' views and preferences for consumer directed care: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 81-94.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0202014. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.