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)