1.Describe the research questions posed in the studies.

2.Describe the research or intervention designs used in the studies i.e. experimental, qualitative, non-experimental, retrospective, longitudinal, descriptive, etc. Be sure to describe the attributes of the design.

3.Compare how the participants were recruited.

4.Compare how data were collected.

5.By type, compare the independent and dependent variables, and any other variables i.e. extraneous, confounding, etc. addressed in the studies. Be sure to describe the attributes of each type.

6.Describe the statistical test used to analyze the study variables. Be sure to describe the attributes of the test and explain the meaning of the score (if any) and its interpretation.

7.Describe the interpretation of the probability of the significance for the statistical test.

8.Compare the study results and conclusions.

9.What larger population is each study intending to represent?

10.What sample design i.e. cohort, case control, random, non-randomized, etc., and sample size and characteristics i.e. pediatric, women of child-bearing age, etc. are used in the studies?

11.Is there a research question that you would like one day to explore?

12.What bias is inherent to your study design (see Assignment 4.1) and did you detect its presence?

Abstract

Aim of study was to evaluate the effects of a multi-component intervention on nursing students' knowledge of evidence-based hand-hygiene. A quasi-experimental design was used.

Nursing students (N=146) from two universities of applied sciences (experimental groupn=107, control groupn=39) completed an instrument based on international clinical guidelines related to hand hygiene that consisted of 17Likert-scaleitems. Data were collected at three time points (baseline, after university-based training and after clinical training) between autumn 2014 and spring 2016. Group differences were examined using chi-squared orFisher Exact tests, the Mann-Whitney andUtest. Within-group differences were assessed with theMcNemar testfor paired nominal data.

At the first and second time points the experimental group had better hand hygiene knowledge than the controls. There were no group differences in responses to items concerning the appropriate length ofhand disinfection. The experimental group showed improvements in the practice of washing hands with soap and water, but not in the other statements concerning hand disinfection.

Theoretical recap and training at school seemed to influence students' hand hygiene knowledge, but reinforcement during clinical training may be required to ensure that learning practical evidence-based skills, such as hand-hygiene, may be established.