Abstract
Aim
Control of infection is important to prevent school absence. We aimed to review hand-hygiene interventions in high income countries aiming to reduce gastrointestinal and upper-respiratory tract infection-related absence in educational settings, and identify which intervention components are effective.
Subject and methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis. Interventions were coded according to Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Education Resource Information Centre, Science and Social Sciences Citation Index and the British Education Index from 1 September 2014 to 25 May 2022, papers included in a 2014 review by Willmott et al., and hand-searching reference lists of included studies. We also searched for, and coded, relevant international guidelines on hand-hygiene.
Results
We screened 1653 papers, including 11 papers from 9 studies. Meta-analysis showed that school-based interventions significantly reduced respiratory tract and gastrointestinal infection-related absence (relative rate ratio 0.754; 95% confidence interval 0.602 to 0.944). Evidence from subgroup analysis supports the use of more than seven behaviour change techniques, targeting both adults and children, and providing information on the risks of inadequate hand-hygiene as well as instruction. The effectiveness of individual behaviour change techniques could not be determined. We found no evidence to support the interventions currently recommended in a range of international guidelines.
Conclusion
School-based hand-hygiene interventions are effective in reducing infection-related absence. There is some evidence that the number and type of behaviour change techniques used in interventions is important in increasing intervention success.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Control of infection in children is important for preventing school absence, of which viruses that cause gastrointestinal (GI) and respiratory symptoms are a major cause (Lynch and Kajon 2016). Schoolchildren are at higher risk of catching and spreading respiratory tract (RT) (Kucharski et al. 2014) and GI infection (Doorduyn et al. 2012) due to their high number (Mikolajczyk et al. 2008) of social contacts. School absence is consistently associated with poorer educational outcomes (Carroll 2010) and results in long- (Ansari et al. 2020) and short-term (Thorrington et al. 2017) economic costs.
Multiple systematic reviews have demonstrated a significant reduction in acute respiratory infection following hand-hygiene interventions (Aiello et al. 2008; Warren-Gash et al. 2013; Jefferson et al. 2020), and a 2008 systematic review showed a significant reduction in incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) infection (Aiello et al. 2008). Other reviews have shown effectiveness of hand-hygiene interventions in reducing the incidence of diarrhoea (Ejemot et al. 2008; Freeman et al. 2014). Hand-hygiene is defined by the World Health Organization as “a general term referring to any action of hand cleansing”(WHO 2009).
Some evidence indicates these interventions may translate into a reduction in related school absences. A 2016 systematic review from Willmott et al. (2016) assessed the effectiveness of hand-hygiene interventions in reducing illness absence among children in educational settings in high- and low-income countries. This review found evidence that interventions may reduce RT infection among younger children, but equivocal evidence on both reduction of GI infection, and associations with school related absence. It is now timely to update this work, to find out the current evidence on the effectiveness of handwashing in educational settings.
As well as understanding if hand-hygiene interventions are effective in reducing illness and absenteeism in educational settings, it is crucial to better understand which components of hand-hygiene interventions can be most effective. Trials use a diverse range of intervention components, and there is inconsistency in how these are described and reported. This makes effective implementation and replication of study results challenging, and means there is a dearth of evidence regarding which are most effective.
Coding interventions according to the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1) (Michie et al. 2013) is one method of improving reporting and replication, and also identifying and characterising the ‘active ingredients’ of an intervention. BCTs are defined as “an observable, replicable and irreducible component of an intervention designed to alter or redirect causal processes that regulate behaviour” (Michie et al. 2013). Individual techniques can be grouped into ‘domains’ where they share similar underlying mechanisms of action.
Exactly how to improve hand-hygiene to reduce infection in educational settings is an urgent public health problem, yet no studies have applied behaviour change analysis to assess which BCTs have been used in study interventions motivating hand-hygiene behaviours, and which of these may be effective in reducing GI and RT infection-related absence. In this paper we address this gap. We aim to identify if specific BCTs used in existing hand-hygiene interventions in high income countries reduce GI and RT infection-related absence in educational settings and, if so, which BCTs may be the active ingredients in these interventions. To meet this aim we will address the following objectives, to assess:
-
1-
Which BCTs have been used in existing interventions, in order to understand the form of previous study interventions and, therefore, which techniques have can be evaluated.
-
2-
The effectiveness of the BCTs used in reducing common infection-related school absence, in order to quantify the overall effect of school-based hand-hygiene interventions.
-
3-
If interventions aimed at children alone, or children and adults, are likely to be more effective.
-
4-
If there is an association between the total number of BCTs used and intervention effectiveness.
-
5-
If targeting ‘risk perception’ and ‘instruction’ is more effective than ‘instruction’ alone. Objectives 3 to 5 aim to further characterise the most effective interventions, in order to guide future intervention design.
-
6-
Which, and how many, BCTs are used in trial interventions, compared with those recommended by international guidelines. This will allow evaluation of the evidence base for current recommendations.
-
7-
Direct measures of behaviour change, including changes in the frequency of handwashing and intervention acceptability, with the aim to appreciate the potential for sustaining intervention results.
Methods
PROSPERO protocol pre-registration, CRD42020218144.
Eligibility criteria
We included: randomised controlled trials where the intervention included a hand-hygiene component; peer-reviewed studies, conducted in educational settings in high income countries- according to the World Bank classification at the time of the study-; interventions including children aged 3-11 years old; and which reported a measure of absence due to symptoms of RT and/or GI infection. For studies of other age ranges, we only included results pertaining to our age criteria.
Willmott defined educational settings as “institutions incorporating formal educational activities including day care facilities and nurseries”(Willmott et al. 2016).
Hand-hygiene interventions were defined as “any initiative for children and/or staff working with them undertaken to prevent the spread of infectious illness”(Willmott et al. 2016). Comparators could include placebos or active comparators. We did not restrict on length of follow up or language.
Search strategy
We developed the search terms and strategy in consultation with both an information specialist (NR) and our patient and public involvement group formed of teachers.
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Education Resource Information Centre, Science and Social Sciences Citation Index and the British Education Index from 1 September 2014 to present. Searches were carried out on 16th November 2020. The search update was completed on 25th May 2022 (full search strategy, available in supplementary information (SI)).
We also screened papers included in, or citing, the 2014 review by Willmott et al. (2016).
We deduplicated using EndNote before screening using Rayyan (Ouzzani et al. 2016).
Two reviewers (EH and CA) independently screened all titles and abstracts. Conflicts were resolved with discussion. Three reviewers (EH and CA & HD) followed the same process for full text screening.
Data extraction and quality assessment
The lead author (EH) extracted data from studies included in Willmott’s review (Willmott et al. 2016) and checked against Willmott’s extraction. All newly identified studies were extracted from independently by both EH and HD, and results compared. Information extracted included study details, description of the intervention and control, length of follow up, outcomes and analysis. The risk of bias in all studies was independently assessed by both EH and HD, in accordance with Cochrane guidance (Higgins et al. 2020).
Any disagreements throughout the process were resolved through discussion or involvement of a third reviewer (JJL).
We planned to assess publication bias via funnel plot asymmetry and Egger’s test, if there were sufficient studies.
Behaviour change techniques coding
All included papers were independently coded by EH and either CA, HD, or JB according to BCTTv1 (Michie et al. 2013). Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion. A codebook was created and populated throughout the process supporting consistency across coders. We consulted teachers on defining ‘credible source’.
Hand-hygiene guidelines
Eligible guidelines must come from a government or national health body, and be specifically related to children’s hand-hygiene in educational settings. We searched for guidelines from the UK, USA, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. If multiple eligible guidelines were found for one country, all were included. EH and CA coded included guidelines using the process above.
Statistical analyses
We used Stata for statistical analyses (StataCorp, Tx).
Objective 1: We used simple counts to map BCT use in interventions.
Objective 2: Due to the reduced influence of factors such as parents’ ability to find childcare, we used the number of GI and RT infection absence episodes, rather than days, as the measure of absence.
We used random effects meta-analysis to pool results and estimated statistical heterogeneity using I2.
We planned to estimate the effect of BCTs with meta-regression if there were sufficient studies, or otherwise use subgroup analysis.
Objectives 3-5: Studies were divided into subgroups according to whether BCTs were targeted at adults and children or children alone; if they had more or less than the median number of BCTs targeted at the intervention group alone (seven); and whether they utilised techniques targeting ‘risk perception’ and ‘instruction’ or ‘risk perception’ alone respectively.
We used random-effects meta-analysis to compare subgroups. Details of equations used, (SI).
Objective 6: We used the process above to BCT code. Recommended BCTs were described and compared to those used in study interventions.
Objective 7: Any metrics of handwashing quality, duration and frequency or measures of intervention acceptability were collected.
Results
We screened 1653 papers for eligibility, and 11 papers from 9 studies met the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). Summary of included studies, Table 1.
Characteristics of included studies
All the included studies were cluster randomised controlled trials. Two studies clustered by class (White et al. 2001) or ‘teams’ of classes (Sandora et al. 2008). All other studies clustered by school (Ladegaard and Stage 1999; Nandrup-Bus 2009; Prazuck et al. 2010; Stebbins et al. 2011; Azor-Martínez et al. 2014; Priest et al. 2015; Azor-Martinez et al. 2016; Alzaher et al. 2018).
All studies included children across multiple ages or school years. The age range of four studies extended beyond the age range (White et al. 2001; Nandrup-Bus 2009; Azor-Martínez et al. 2014, 2016; Alzaher et al. 2018).
Eight of the studies were carried out in schools (White et al. 2001; Sandora et al. 2008; Nandrup-Bus 2009; Prazuck et al. 2010; Stebbins et al. 2011; Azor-Martínez et al. 2014; Priest et al. 2015; Azor-Martinez et al. 2016; Alzaher et al. 2018) and one took place in a day care centre (Ladegaard and Stage 1999).
Four of the studies were set in Europe (Ladegaard and Stage 1999; Nandrup-Bus 2009; Prazuck et al. 2010; Azor-Martínez et al. 2014, 2016), three took place in the USA (White et al. 2001; Sandora et al. 2008; Stebbins et al. 2011), one in New Zealand (Priest et al. 2015) and one in Saudi Arabia (Alzaher et al. 2018).
Intervention
In four of the studies, intervention components were targeted at children only (Sandora et al. 2008; Nandrup-Bus 2009; Priest et al. 2015; Alzaher et al. 2018) whilst five targeted parents and/or teachers as well as children (Ladegaard and Stage 1999; White et al. 2001; Prazuck et al. 2010; Stebbins et al. 2011; Azor-Martínez et al. 2014, 2016). The majority of interventions involved the provision of hand sanitiser (White et al. 2001; Sandora et al. 2008; Prazuck et al. 2010; Stebbins et al. 2011; Azor-Martínez et al. 2014; Priest et al. 2015; Azor-Martinez et al. 2016), often in addition to hygiene education. 3 studies used soap and water only (Ladegaard and Stage 1999; Nandrup-Bus 2009; Alzaher et al. 2018), whilst 1 used hand sanitiser only (Sandora et al. 2008). 5 took approaches involving both soap and water, and hand sanitiser (White et al. 2001; Prazuck et al. 2010; Stebbins et al. 2011; Azor-Martínez et al. 2014; Priest et al. 2015; Azor-Martinez et al. 2016), each involving education with designated occasions for hand sanitiser use.
Control
Most control groups (Ladegaard and Stage 1999; Sandora et al. 2008; Nandrup-Bus 2009; Stebbins et al. 2011; Azor-Martínez et al. 2014, 2016; Alzaher et al. 2018) were told to follow normal handwashing procedure, although this was poorly reported. In two studies (Prazuck et al. 2010; Priest et al. 2015), the control group received part of the education package provided to the intervention group. One study (White et al. 2001) used a placebo hand sanitiser solution for the control group with all other elements remaining the same across both groups.
Outcomes
Some studies reported both GI and RT illness related absence episodes and/or school days lost (White et al. 2001; Sandora et al. 2008; Azor-Martínez et al. 2014; Priest et al. 2015; Azor-Martinez et al. 2016); others reported on RT illness (Stebbins et al. 2011; Alzaher et al. 2018) or GI illness-related (Prazuck et al. 2010) absence alone.
Two studies (Sandora et al. 2008; Prazuck et al. 2010) did not report infection-related absence episodes, only infection-related absence days, therefore their data could not be included in the quantitative analysis. Outcomes of these studies (SI).
Risk of bias
Many studies demonstrated common design issues. The nature of the intervention meant that blinding of participants and study personnel was an almost universal issue, with 8/9 studies being high risk, potentially causing performance bias. The reliance on parental reporting of absence/illness type could have contributed to: detection and social desirability bias and poor response rates leading to loss of data, with 3/9 studies being high or unclear risk for incomplete data (SI). Some studies attempted to overcome the subjective nature of symptom reporting by verifying cases of infection through laboratory testing or GP consultation, but 7/9 studies were still found to have a high risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessment. Full justification for risk of bias assessments, (SI). As there were fewer than 10 studies, we could not test for publication bias.
Hand-hygiene guidelines
One set of eligible guidelines was found for the UK (NICE 2017), Canada (Government of Canada 2021) and Australia (Australian Government Department of Health 2021). Two sets were found for the USA (Centres for Disease Control and Prevention 2021; CDC Healthy Schools 2021) and no eligible guidelines were found for New Zealand.
Objective 1 - BCTs used in existing studies
A total of 18 BCTs out of 93 possible techniques (19.35%) were identified across the included studies (Fig. 2). The number of BCTs used in each intervention ranged from 6-11, (median, 8.5). A wider variety of BCTs were targeted at children compared to adults (17 vs 8); only one study (Ladegaard and Stage 1999) aimed more techniques at adults than children.
The most commonly used BCT was ‘instruction on how to perform the behaviour’, used in all study interventions whilst ‘action planning’ (White et al. 2001; Sandora et al. 2008; Nandrup-Bus 2009; Prazuck et al. 2010; Stebbins et al. 2011; Azor-Martínez et al. 2014; Priest et al. 2015; Azor-Martinez et al. 2016; Alzaher et al. 2018) and ‘credible source’ (Ladegaard and Stage 1999; Sandora et al. 2008; Nandrup-Bus 2009; Prazuck et al. 2010; Stebbins et al. 2011; Azor-Martínez et al. 2014; Priest et al. 2015; Azor-Martinez et al. 2016; Alzaher et al. 2018) were included in eight interventions. Examples of commonly used BCTs, (SI).
Objective 2 – BCT effectiveness
Meta-analysis of the number of infection-related absence episodes (Fig. 3) revealed a significant reduction in absence in the intervention groups (pooled estimate of relative rate ratio 0.754, 95% confidence interval (0.602, 0.944), I2= 91.86%, p= 0.014).
As we included fewer than 10 papers, we were unable to perform meta regression, so used subgroup analyses to explore heterogeneity.
Objectives 3-5 - subgroup analyses
Data from White et al. (2001) were not included in quantitative behavioural analysis as both arms were exposed to the same BCTs, the only difference being whether the hand sanitiser was placebo or not.
Objective 3 – target of interventions
The first subgroup analysis compared interventions that targeted adults and children versus children alone. Meta-analysis (Table 2) showed that reduction in GI and RT illness absence episodes was only significant in the subgroup of studies targeting BCTs at adults as well.
Objective 4- number of BCTs
Studies were divided according to the median number, 7, of BCTs targeted only at the intervention group. There was a significant absence reduction in the subgroup using >7 BCTs (Table 2).
Objective 5– ‘risk perception’ and ‘instruction’
Reduction in absence was significant in the subgroup targeting both ‘risk perception’ and ‘instruction’ but not ‘instruction’ alone (Table 2).
Forest plots illustrating results of all subgroup analyses, (SI).
However, for all subgroups, both parametric and non-parametric contrast tests showed that there was no significant difference between the pooled effect estimates of the two subgroups. Unexplained heterogeneity within subgroups remained high, although it was reduced compared to combined meta-analysis. Together this means that the confidence in the benefit of using more BCTs, targeting them at both adults and children and targeting ‘risk perception’ and ‘instruction’ is limited.
Objective 6- guidelines
Ten different BCTs were used across the national guidelines for the UK (NICE 2017), Australia (Australian Government Department of Health 2021), Canada (Government of Canada 2021) and USA (Centres for Disease Control and Prevention 2021; CDC Healthy Schools 2021). The median number of BCTs was five (range, 4-8). All guidelines recommended fewer BCTs than used in study interventions.
In line with the study interventions, frequently recommended BCTs included ‘action planning’ (5 guidelines) (NICE 2017; Government of Canada 2021; Australian Government Department of Health 2021; Centres for Disease Control and Prevention 2021; CDC Healthy Schools 2021); ‘instruction on how to perform the behaviour’ (Government of Canada 2021; Australian Government Department of Health 2021; Centres for Disease Control and Prevention 2021; CDC Healthy Schools 2021), and ‘addition of objects to the environment’ (NICE 2017; Government of Canada 2021; Australian Government Department of Health 2021; Centres for Disease Control and Prevention 2021) (both in four guidelines). Despite eight out of nine of the study interventions using a ‘credible source’, no guideline recommended the use it. The Australian and Canadian guidelines did not recommend addressing ‘risk perception’.
None of the study interventions included all of BCTs recommended by NICE. Therefore, it was not possible to assess the effectiveness of this particular combination.
Objective 7- handwashing metrics
Only three studies (White et al. 2001; Nandrup-Bus 2009; Stebbins et al. 2010) reported on the frequency of handwashing or hand sanitiser use, showing moderate uptake. One survey found that promoting hand washing 2-4 times per day, use of hand sanitiser and teaching about practices to prevent flu were highly acceptable to teachers (Stebbins et al. 2009).
Discussion
Main finding of this study
We systematically reviewed 11 papers from 9 studies and coded interventions using the BCTTv1 taxonomy (Michie et al. 2013). We found that a school-based hand-hygiene intervention can significantly reduce incidences of GI and RT illness related school absence. Subgroup analyses reduced heterogeneity, but pooled effect sizes were not significantly different. It was not possible to assess the effectiveness of the individual BCTs. We found no evidence to support either the number of BCTs or the specific combination recommended by guidelines.
There is some evidence to support using more BCTs, targeting them at both adults and children and targeting both ‘risk perception’ and ‘instruction’.
What is already known on this topic
This systematic review and behaviour change techniques analysis builds on Willmott et al.’s existing review. It is the only systematic review assessing the impact of school-based hand-hygiene interventions on illness-related absenteeism. We limited our searches to high income countries and identified three additional studies not included by Willmott et al. Based on individual study results Willmott et al. (2016), and a second review by Meadows et al. (Meadows and Saux 2004), indicated that school-based hand-hygiene intervention in all settings may reduce infection-related absence. Both reviews were unable to carry out a pooled meta-analysis, and neither sought to identify the ‘active ingredients’ of interventions.
Several reviews have carried out behavioural analyses of hand-hygiene interventions in a range of populations (Huis et al. 2012; Staniford and Schmidtke 2020; Sands et al. 2020). Staniford et al. (Staniford and Schmidtke 2020) carried out a systematic review and behavioural analysis of the effect of interventions on behaviour performance, e.g. frequency of handwashing, rather than associated infection. They also used Michie’s BCTTv1 (Michie et al. 2013) and the most frequently used domain was ‘shaping knowledge’. This is in keeping with our finding that ‘instruction on how to perform behaviour’, which falls under the ‘shaping knowledge’ domain, was the most frequently employed technique. They also found that studies targeting ≥4 BCT domains were more likely to have a positive outcome than those targeting <4 (Staniford and Schmidtke 2020). This is in keeping with both our findings and the broad trend observed by Huis et al. who found that the relative difference in effect size between intervention and control groups increased with the number of behavioural determinants addressed (Huis et al. 2012).
Wang et al. (2017)’s systematic review is the only review to characterise and compare intervention types. They described the content of hand-hygiene interventions in educational settings, identifying soap and hand sanitiser-based interventions were effective in reducing GI infection-related absence. Their broad categorisation did not capture all aspects of the interventions, and they highlighted a need to investigate further the motivators of hand-hygiene practices, which we captured in our BCT analysis.
In relation to intervention characteristics, existing evidence from other areas (Enright et al. 2020) shows adults are often drivers of behaviour change in children and can facilitate important behavioural changes. Additionally, existing work shows that a multifaceted approach, targeting both education and action, is more effective, and that risk perception may promote handwashing behaviours (Miller et al. 2011).
What this study adds
Our meta-analysis indicated that school-based hand-hygiene interventions lead to a significant decrease in RT and GI illness-related absence, and so should be implemented, despite high heterogeneity. The optimal behavioural contents of this intervention remains unclear. Therefore, although guidelines recommend specific BCTs there is no evidence those recommended are most effective.
We found some evidence that using more BCTs, utilising both ‘risk perception’ and ‘instruction’ in intervention design, and targeting both children and adults is more effective. Although the evidence is weak, given the current absence of further studies and the limited harms in implementation, we would recommend incorporating these aspects into intervention design.
Action planning was used in almost all studies, meaning we were unable to isolate this BCT to identify its effectiveness. However, making a specific plan about when a behaviour should be performed has been identified as effective in many similar studies (Sands et al. 2020). Given equivocal evidence, limited harms in implementation, we would recommend the use of action planning, which is also supported by theory (Sands et al. 2020).
Whilst the positive effects of promoting handwashing have been established, there is the potential to optimise the benefits. We recommend large scale, longer, and better controlled cluster trials to identify the most effective BCTs in this context.
Limitations of this study
A limitation was the number and quality of existing studies in this field. We expected high heterogeneity, but we did not have sufficient data to undertake meta regression, our planned method to explore this. Nevertheless, heterogeneity was lower in subgroups, suggesting these factors partly explain the heterogeneity.
Conclusion
National guidelines recommend school-based hand-hygiene interventions. We found no evidence supporting current guideline-recommended intervention components. We found that interventions reduce infection-related absence and, therefore, should be implemented. To maximise effectiveness, interventions should use more than seven BCTs, target both adults and children, provide information on the risks of inadequate hand-hygiene as well as instruction.
Availability of data
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Aiello AE, Coulborn RM, Perez V, Larson EL (2008) Effect of hand hygiene on infectious disease risk in the community setting: A meta-analysis. Am J Public Health 98:1372–1381. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.124610
Alzaher AA, Almudarra SS, Mustafa MH, Gosadi IM (2018) The importance of hand hygiene education on primary schoolgirls’ absence due to upper respiratory infections in Saudi Arabia a cluster randomized controlled trial. Saudi Med J 39:1044–1049. https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2018.10.23344
Ansari A, Hofkens TL, Pianta RC (2020) Absenteeism in the First Decade of Education Forecasts Civic Engagement and Educational and Socioeconomic Prospects in Young Adulthood. J Youth Adolesc 49:1835–1848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01272-4
Australian Government Department of Health (2021) Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC) advice on reducing the potential risk of COVID-19 transmission in schools. https://www.health.gov.au/news/australian-health-protection-principal-committee-ahppc-advice-on-reducing-the-potential-risk-of-covid-19-transmission-in-schools. Accessed 25 Feb 2021d
Azor-Martínez E, Cobos-Carrascosa E, Gimenez-Sanchez F et al (2014) Effectiveness of a multifactorial handwashing program to reduce school absenteeism due to acute gastroenteritis. Pediatric Infectious Disease J 33. https://doi.org/10.1097/INF.0000000000000040
Azor-Martinez E, Cobos-Carrascosa E, Seijas-Vazquez ML et al (2016) Hand Hygiene Program Decreases School Absenteeism Due to Upper Respiratory Infections. J School Health 86:873–881. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12454
Carroll HCM (Tim) (2010) The Effect of Pupil Absenteeism on Literacy and Numeracy in the Primary School. Sch Psychol Int 31:115–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034310361674
CDC (2021) Cleaning, Disinfection, and Hand Hygiene in Schools – a Toolkit for School Administrators. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/clean-disinfect-hygiene.html. Accessed 25 Feb 2021e
COVID-19 (2021) guidance for schools Kindergarten to Grade 12 - Canada.ca. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/health-professionals/guidance-schools-childcare-programs.html. Accessed 25 Feb 2021c
Doorduyn Y, van Pelt W, Havelaar AH (2012) The burden of infectious intestinal disease (IID) in the community: A survey of self-reported IID in the Netherlands. Epidemiol Infect 140:1185–1192
Ejemot RI, Ehiri JE, Meremikwu MM, Critchley JA (2008) Hand washing for preventing diarrhoea. Cochrane Database of Systematic Rev
Enright G, Allman-Farinelli M, Redfern J (2020) Effectiveness of family-based behavior change interventions on obesity-related behavior change in children: A realist synthesis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17:1–27
Freeman MC, Stocks ME, Cumming O et al (2014) Systematic review: Hygiene and health: Systematic review of handwashing practices worldwide and update of health effects. Trop Med Int Health 19:906–916. https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.12339
Higgins JPT, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JAC (2020) Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane, 2020. Available from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/. Accessed 24 Jan 2021
Huis A, van Achterberg T, de Bruin M et al (2012) A systematic review of hand hygiene improvement strategies: a behavioural approach. Implementation Sci 7:92. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-92
Jefferson T, del Mar CB, Dooley L et al (2020) Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:CD006207. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5
Kucharski AJ, Kwok KO, Wei VWI et al (2014) The Contribution of Social Behaviour to the Transmission of Influenza A in a Human Population. PLoS Pathog 10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004206
Ladegaard M, Stage V (1999) Hand-hygiene and sickness among small children attending day care centers. An intervention study. Ugeskr Laeger 161:4396–4400
Lynch JP, Kajon AE (2016) Adenovirus: Epidemiology, Global Spread of Novel Serotypes, and Advances in Treatment and Prevention. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 37:586–602. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1584923
Meadows E, Saux N Le (2004) A systematic review of the effectiveness of antimicrobial rinse-free hand sanitizers for prevention of illness-related absenteeism in elementary school children. BMC Public Health 4:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-4-50
Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M et al (2013) The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Annals Behavior Med 46:81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6
Mikolajczyk RT, Akmatov MK, Rastin S, Kretzschmar M (2008) Social contacts of school children and the transmission of respiratory-spread pathogens. Epidemiol Infect 136:813–822. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268807009181
Miller S, Yardley L, Little P (2011) Development of an intervention to reduce transmission of respiratory infections and pandemic flu: Measuring and predicting hand-washing intentions. 17:59–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2011.564188
Nandrup-Bus I (2009) Mandatory handwashing in elementary schools reduces absenteeism due to infectious illness among pupils: A pilot intervention study. Am J Infect Control 37:820–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2009.06.012
NICE (2017) Recommendations | Antimicrobial stewardship: changing risk-related behaviours in the general population | Guidance
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A (2016) Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 5:210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Prazuck T, Compte-Nguyen G, Pelat C et al (2010) Reducing gastroenteritis occurrences and their consequences in elementary schools with alcohol-based hand sanitizers. Pediatr Infect Dis J 29:994–998
Priest P, McKenzie JE, Audas R et al (2015) Hand sanitiser provision for reducing illness absences in primary school children: A cluster randomised trial. PLoS Med 11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001700
Sandora TJ, Shih MC, Goldmann DA (2008) Reducing absenteeism from gastrointestinal and respiratory illness in elementary school students: A randomized, controlled trial of an infection-control intervention. Pediatrics 121. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-2597
Sands M, Aiken AM, Cumming O, Aunger R (2020) The effect of behavioural interventions targeting hand hygiene practices among nurses in high-income hospital settings: a systematic review. Public Health Rev 41(1 41):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/S40985-020-00141-6
Staniford LJ, Schmidtke KA (2020) A systematic review of hand-hygiene and environmental-disinfection interventions in settings with children. BMC Public Health 20:195
Stebbins S, Downs JS, Vukotich CJ (2009) Using nonpharmaceutical interventions to prevent influenza transmission in elementary school children: Parent and teacher perspectives. J Public Health Manag Pract 15:112–117. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PHH.0000346007.66898.67
Stebbins S, Stark JH, Vukotich CJ (2010) Compliance with a multilayered nonpharmaceutical intervention in an Urban elementary school setting. J Public Health Manag Pract 16:316–324. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181cb4368
Stebbins S, Cummings DAT, Stark JH et al (2011) Reduction in the incidence of influenza A but not influenza B associated with use of hand sanitizer and cough hygiene in schools: A randomized controlled trial. Pediatric Infectious Disease J 30:921–926. https://doi.org/10.1097/INF.0b013e3182218656
Thorrington D, Balasegaram S, Cleary P et al (2017) Social and Economic Impacts of School Influenza Outbreaks in England: Survey of Caregivers. J School Health 87:209–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12484
Wang Z, Lapinski M, Quilliam E et al (2017) The effect of hand-hygiene interventions on infectious disease-associated absenteeism in elementary schools: A systematic literature review. Am J Infect Control 45:682–689
Warren-Gash C, Fragaszy E, Hayward AC (2013) Hand hygiene to reduce community transmission of influenza and acute respiratory tract infection: A systematic review. Influenza Other Respir Viruses 7:738–749
When and How to Wash Your Hands (2021) https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/bam/child-development/how-to-wash-hands.htm. Accessed 25 Feb 2021f
White CG, Shinder FS, Shinder AL, Dyer DL (2001) Reduction of Illness Absenteeism in Elementary Schools Using an Alcohol-free Instant Hand Sanitizer. J School Nurs 17:248–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/10598405010170050401
WHO (2009) Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care: First Global Patient Safety Challenge Clean Care Is Safer Care. World Health Organization
Willmott M, Nicholson A, Busse H et al (2016) Effectiveness of hand hygiene interventions in reducing illness absence among children in educational settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Dis Child 101:42–50
Acknowledgements
JJL is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [Doctoral Research Fellowship NIHR300738]. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. This research was not funded.
We consulted a public and patient involvement group, formed of 16 teachers, to support with this work, sharing their expertise and experience to support developing our search terms, and defining ‘credible source’. We would like to thank Mrs Maeve Wigley (nursery, retired), Mr Graham Wigley (years 7-11, retired), Mrs Paulette Gordon Stewart (years 5-8), Mrs Zoe Taylor-West (year 3), Mrs Kate Parker (years 2-8), Mrs Alexandra Oakden (reception–year 6), Mr Nicholas Oakden (reception-year 6) and those who wished to remain anonymous.
Data sharing
As this was a systematic review, we did not collect first-hand data.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JJL, CA and EH all contributed to the systematic review’s conception and design. NR assisted in development of the search strategy. EH, CA and HD all screened search results. Data was extracted by EH and HD; behavioural analysis was performed by EH, JB and CA. Statistical analysis was carried out by EH and JJL. The manuscript was drafted by EH, and revised critically for important intellectual content by CA and JJL.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Not applicable
Consent to participate
Not applicable
Consent for publication
Not applicable
Conflicts of interest
JJL is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [Doctoral Research Fellowship NIHR300738]. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
In 2022 CA was contracted qualitative methodologist for the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) for which she was paid personally. She has worked as a consultant qualitative methodologist for Wildfowl Wetlands Trust, Linney Create, and Adelphi Real World, and received personal payment.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
ESM 1
(DOCX 4578 kb)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Hoyle, E., Davies, H., Bourhill, J. et al. Effectiveness of hand-hygiene interventions in reducing illness-related absence in educational settings in high income countries: systematic review and behavioural analysis. J Public Health (Berl.) (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-023-02044-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-023-02044-7