Skip to main content

Table 4 Hygiene risk categories prior to all flows combined by provider type, facility type and work shift

From: Hand hygiene during facility-based childbirth in Cambodia: a theory-driven, mixed-methods observational study

 

n

Adequate

Inadequate

Aseptic Technique Invalidated

Somers’ D clustered by facility; p-value (Confidence interval)

Flow type

 Labour

95

21 (22%)

52 (55%)

22 (23%)

Ref

 Delivery

102

19 (17%)

36 (35%)

47 (46%)

0.25; p = 0.00 (0.15 – 0.35)

 Newborn aftercare

54

4 (7.4%)

11 (20.4%)

39 (72%)

0.46; p = 0.00 (0.34 – 0.59)

 All flows

251

44 (18%)

99 (39%)

108 (43%)

 

Provider type

 Sec. Midwife

145

27 (19%)

54 (37%)

64 (44%)

Ref

 Primary Midwife

93

15 (16%)

39 (42%)

39 (42%)

-0.05; p = 0.8 (-0.34 – 0.25)

 Intern

3

1 (33%)

1 (33%)

1 (33%)

0.02; p = 0.14 (-0.01 – 0.04)

 Doctor + Nurse

5

0 (0%)

3 (60%)

2 (40%)

-0.05; p = 0.206 (-0.12 – 0.03)

Facility type

 Primary Health Centre

137

17 (13%)

58 (42%)

62 (45%)

Ref

 Referral Hospital

110

26 (24%)

39 (35%)

45 (41%)

0.24; p = 0.20 (-0.12 – 0.60)

Shift

 Morning

109

24 (22%)

35 (32%)

50 (46%)

Ref

 Afternoon

49

10 (20%)

18 (37%)

21 (43%)

-0.03; p = 0.59 (-0.16 –0.09)

 Overnight

89

9 (10%)

44 (49%)

36 (41%)

-0.25; p = 0.03 (-0.47 – -0.02)