Ancheta Et Al Handwashing - Chap4

Saint Mary’s University
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
Non-Allied Health Students’ Knowledge and Practices on Handwashing and their

Profile Characteristics
A
Thesis Presented to
The Faculty of the School of Health and Natural Sciences
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Science in Nursing
By
Kimberly B. Ancheta
Crystel Joi O. Edale
Julius M. Liang, Jr
Micah B. Mendoza
Jaylord B. Verazon
April, 2021
Non-Allied Health Students’ Knowledge and Practices...

1
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Rationale
Hand washing is a “do-it-yourself vaccine” because it is only the person who can
perform it to prevent the transmission of microogranisms and it involves five simple and
effective steps (Tamilarasi, Arunmozhi, Raja, & Rajajeyakumar, 2016). Moreover, during
times of pandemics, handwashing is vital in breaking the chain of infection which could
eventually slow down the spread of most of infections. However, reports on national
television and records from Department of Health (DOH) show that spread of infectious
and communicable diseases is increasing. According to the report of DOH as of
November 23, 2020, there are 422, 840 total cases in the Philippines and 58, 968, 438
worldwide. Additionally, Center for Disease Control (CDC) revealed that the national
ensemble forecast indicates an uncertain trend in new COVID-19 cases reported over the
next weeks and predicted that 810,000 to 2,300,000 new cases will likely be reported
during the week ending December 12, 2020. Over the last several weeks, more reported
cases than expected have fallen outside of the forecasted prediction intervals. Hence, as
an infection prevention measure, hand washing must be reiterated to the public.
Medical evidence revealed that hands are the main transmitters of the most
common communicable. Microorganisms cannot be seen by the naked eye that made it
very dangerous because it can be transmitted anywhere however, people are not aware of

2
its rapid transmission. Hence, to break the chain of infection, hand hygiene must be done
frequently. This technique does not take much time or effort, but it has great impact in
preventing transmission of infection. Adopting this simple habit can play a major role in
protecting individual’s health. According to Berman, Snyder & Frandsen, (2016),
“knowledge of ways to reduce or eliminate microorganisms reduces the likelihood of
transmission”. Similarly, WHO (2009) cited “inappropriate hand washing can result in
hands still remaining contaminated”. These mean that hand washing is best effective only
when an individual has correct and adequate knowledge on how to perform it and apply
it.
Adequate knowledge and practice of hand washing was described as hand
washing with soap and water with proper rubbing on the specific site of the hands,
appropriate rinsing, right position, correct drying and performing it with the ideal time of
20 seconds. Before the process, all accessories on the arms and hands must be removed.
The easy five steps in proper hand washing are as follows according to CDC: (1) Wet the
hands with warm running water, (2) apply soap; (3) rub the hands together to make a
lather and rub the back of hands, between the fingers, palms, and wrists; (4) rinse the
hands well in running water and make sure that the hands are lower than the
elbow; And (5) dry the hands using a clean towel or by air dry.
There are various conducive settings to teach hand washing such as at home,
schools, and offices. However, Quintero, Freeman, & Neumark (2009) asserted that
hygiene and health promotion strategies have been shown to be effective at school. As

3
mentioned above, hand washing technique is simple and easy, then, what is the
appropriate age to teach hand hygiene? Actually, hand washing can be taught properly
during early childhood since children develop the larger overall capacity to process
information and thus retain data similar as long-term memory (Flavin, 2018). As a result,
their knowledge about hand washing can be further enhanced during their stay in school
so that on the latter part they are able to practice it properly. Furthermore, school-aged
children are receptive to learning and are more inclined than adults to change their
behaviors and adapt new, more healthful habits and can act as agents of health change in
the context of their social environments. Therefore, the researchers want to assess the
adolescent school-going students, whether this information was retained and are still
correct.
On the other hand, different groups and incorporation globally are taking actions
through programs to promote hand washing. UNICEF created a program called “WASH”
which stands for Water Access, Sanitation and Hygiene. Their team works in over 100
countries to improve their water access, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices of
people worldwide. This program has successfully reached Manila Water Foundation
(MWF) and was brought to marginalized communities in the Philippines. Through the
WASH program, communities are given access to clean and safe water. Through the
promotion of proper hygiene, their knowledge were improved and thus promote good
health. In 2018, UNICEF are also moving towards strengthening the system of WASH
in schools to promote hygiene in learning institutions, at the same time, contribute to the
global agenda of the Social Development Goals. “If we believe that our children need to

4
be healthy to go to school, we should implement WASH. It is really proven that
handwashing is a key to healthy body. As what Ledesma (2018) cited, it is through
keeping hands clean that we can drive off infection, we can drive off diseases.
As mentioned above, hand hygiene is like a “do-it-yourslef” vaccine.
Unfortunately, there are still increasing cases of COVID-19 and the vaccine is not yet
available in the Philippines. Therefore, these cases prompted the researchers to conduct
this study because it promotes infection prevention measures to the non-allied health
students who does not take most programs like health protocols for infection prevention.
Statement of the problem
This study aims to determine the knowledge and practices of Non-Allied Health
Students (NAHS) of Saint Mary’s University (SMU) regarding handwashing.
1. What are the profile characteristics of the students in terms of:
1.1 Sex
1.2 Department
2. What are the students’ knowledge on handwashing categorized into the following:
2.1 Length of nails
2.2 Removal of jewelries before performing
2.3 Checking the hands for breaks in the skin
2.4 Times of hand washing
2.5 Ideal time for hand washing


5
3. What are the students’ practice on handwashing categorized into the following?
3.1 Wetting the hands under clean running water
3.2 Use of water and soap
3.3 Position of hands and elbows
3.4 Motion for scrubbing the hands
3.5 Drying the hands
3.6 Turning off the faucet
4. Is there a significant difference of the students’ knowledge and practices on hand
washing when grouped in terms of the profile characteristics?
Statement of Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between the students’ knowledge and practices
on hand washing when grouped in terms of their profile characteristics.


6
Conceptual Framework
The independent variables include the profile characteristics of NAHS (gender
and department). On the other hand, the dependent variables are the knowledge and
practice on handwashing. The expected outcome of these two variables is to determine if
gender and department are significantly different to NAHS’ knowledge and practices on
handwashing.

7
Independent Dependent Expected

Variables Variables Outcomes
Profile 1. Knowledge on
Determine the
Characteristics Handwashing base
significant
of Non-Allied on the following:
difference of
Health Students a. Length of nails
independent and
b. Removal of
dependent
a. Gender jewelries before
variables
b. Department performing
c. Checking the
hands for breaks in
the skin
d. Times of hand
washing
e. Ideal time for
hand washing
2. Practices on
handwashing base
on the following:
a. Wetting the
hands under clean
running water
b. Use of water and
soap
c. Position of hands
and elbows
d. Motion for
scrubbing the hands
e. Drying the hands
f. Turning off the
faucet
Figure 1. Research Paradigm

8
Significance of the Study
The result of this study will be beneficial to the following:
Students. The outcome of this research will foster new ways of enhancing
knowledge, skills and attitude towards hand washing. It will also remind students when
to wash, how to wash one's hands properly and comply more often.
Parents and relatives. The outcome of this study will remind and teach the
parents and relatives the proper way of hand washing. It will give opportunities to teach
their toddlers and remind their grown-up children to wash their hands appropriately and
frequently.
Teachers. Teachers will be benefited from this study about the importance of
hand washing and its significant conclusion that they may impart to their students. They
will also be reminded on the proper steps of hand washing.
School administrators. This study will help in the advancement of school
management in the adherence and promotion of school programs, and a clean, safe and
friendly school for every student, teachers and school staffs.
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
This study is only limited to students who are officially enrolled in SMU from the
different schools of School of Accountancy and Business (SAB), School of Engineering,
Architecture, and Information Technology (SEAIT), and School of Teacher, Education
and Humanities (STEH). The study will be conducted from December to May 2020. This
study will focus only on the different departments mentioned above because most of the

9
programs these students take do not include health protocols for infection prevention.
Thus, they are very much qualified for the study and it will help the students with the
knowledge and practices of Non-Allied Health Students (NAHS) at SMU regarding hand
washing.
Definition of Terms
Hand washing refers to act of cleansing the hands with soap and liquid in order to
remove dirt and germs.
Knowledge refers to information, understanding or a skill that a person gets from
experience or education. In this study, knowledge is the information of the non-allied
health students (NAHS) about hand washing.
Non-allied health students (NAHS) refers to the school going students who are
not studying under health and natural sciences. In this study, SMU students from SAB,
SEAIT, STEH are the respondents.
Practice refers to the actual application with the use of an idea, belief or method.
In this study, practice is the application of hand washing technique.


10
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
Hand washing is proven the most effective in prevention of diseases. However,
even though numerous program promotion were done, many people still consider hand
washing a waste of time (Kartha, 2001 as cited by Adzam, 2012) so people end up rinsing
hands with water alone rather than washing hands with soap (Phillips, 2015). Most
people are assumed to be unaware that hands are hosts to many bacteria and viruses that
can cause infectious diseases since hands are considered the main transmitters. As an
effect, they infect themselves with these microorganisms because of the inadequate or
improper hand washing and resulted to transmitting pathogens to foodstuffs and drinks
and to the mouths of susceptible hosts (Fodai, Grant, & Dean, 2016).
Hand washing is defined as the rubbing together of all surfaces and crevices of the
hands using a soap or chemical and water (Jemal, 2018). It is a very essential action since
it prevents the direct transmission of infectious pathogens on the hands from reaching a
portal of entry and the indirect transfer through food preparation and fomite transmission
pathways (Katz, 2004). Some studies proposed that proper hygiene is the key to reduce
occurrence of infectious diseases in different types of communities (Aiello, Coulborn,
Perez, & Larson (2008). Improper hand hygiene is an important contributing factor to
contracting infectious diseases among college students (Prater, Fortuna, McGill,
Brandeberry, Stone, & Lu, (2016). Approximately 2.4 million deaths can be prevented

11
annually by good hygiene practices, reliable sanitation, and drinking clean water (Rabbi
& Dey, 2013).
College students have been found to inadequately wash their hands, which would
seemingly increase their chances in contracting infectious diseases (Aiello et al., 2008)
which is also the most probable cause of absenteeism. This infection control technique is
a very essential action as Ejemot (2008) found out that it reduces the number absenteeism
due to gastrointestinal illness. Additionally, White, Shinder, Shinder, & Dyer (2001)
asserted that appropriate hand hygiene practices such as hand washing and hand
sanitization can possibly result in the reduction of the spread of infection and the
resulting lost days of school/work because of absenteeism.
The initiation of some serious illnesses had been traced to improper hand
washing. Center for Disease enumerate diseases that is reduced if proper hand washing is
performed. Hand washing reduces the number of people who get sick with diarrhea by
23-40%, diarrheal illness in people with weakened immune systems by 58%, respiratory
illnesses, like colds, in the general population by 16-21%, and absenteeism due to
gastrointestinal illness in school children by 29-57%. WHO (2017) defined diarrhea as
“passage of three or more loose or liquid stools per day can be bacterial, viral and
parasitic in origin.” It is caused by microorganisms that is common when there is
inadequate sanitation and hygiene in preparing food and water and when the water is
contaminated with human or animal feces. The two most common etiological agents are
Rotavirus and Escherichia coli for moderate to severe diarrhea in low income countries.

12
Other etiological agents are cryptosporidium and shigella species. One in nine or 9% of
child death worldwide is diarrhea. According to WHO, children under the age of five,
diarrhea is the second leading cause of mortality. This significant information would aid
to formulate necessary implementation strategies to prevent diarrheal disease. Moreover,
each year there are approximately 525,000 children die from diarrheal diseases, making it
one of the top killers of children globally. In line with that, almost all cases of diarrhea in
children are caused by infections, which mean that most of these deaths are entirely
preventable. Therefore, one of the most effective ways of preventing diarrheal diseases is
hand washing with soap (Melese, Paulos, & Astawesegn, 2019).
Another is Respiratory tract infection (RTI) which is defined as “any infectious
disease of the upper and lower respiratory tract” (National Institute for Health and
Clinical Excellence, 2008). Upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) include the
common cold, laryngitis, pharyngitis/tonsillitis, acute rhinitis, and acute rhinosinusitis
while lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) include acute bronchitis, bronchiolitis,
pneumonia and tracheitis. According to CDC (2019), most of the microorganisms that
trigger respiratory breathing diseases are from coughing and sneezing and spreading its
droplets. These microorganisms are transmitted from person to person. Few people may
acquire this disease by holding something with the associated microorganisms and then
touching the person’s mouth and nose but hand washing can reduce the rate of respiratory
infections by removing respiratory pathogens from hands and preventing them from
entering the body or passing on to other people. Thus, evidence suggests that washing
hands with soap after defecation and before eating can cut the respiratory infection rate

13
by up to 25% (Aiello et al., 2008). One study in Pakistan found that hand washing with
soap reduced the number of pneumonia-related infections in children under the age of
five by more than 50% (Luby, Agboatwalla, Feikin, Painter, Billhimer, Altaf, &
Hoekstra, 2005).
Hand washing with soap under running water is also a key intervention for
preventing the spread of COVID-19. According to Amegah (2020), only 15% of the
population in sub-Saharan Africa have access to basic hand washing facilities with soap
and water. In urban areas, less than a quarter (24%) of the population has access to hand
washing facilities. Prevalence of hand washing in sub-Saharan Africa after exposure to
excreta has been estimated at 14%. Fortunately, since the outbreak of COVID-19, the
hand washing practices of the African population have been improved tremendously,
with access to hand washing stations noticeably increasing in community centres,
schools, markets, bus terminals, lorry stations, and other public spaces in rural and urban
areas of African countries. After the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important that these gains
are sustained to help reduce sanitation-related diseases, which contribute substantially to
disease morbidity and mortality in African countries. In 2016, the number of diarrhoea
deaths in sub-Saharan Africa attributed to unsafe drinking water (259, 073 deaths), poor
sanitation (236 134 deaths), and lack of hand washing facilities (851 66 deaths) was the
highest of all the low-income and middle-income regions of the world. Poor sanitation
also exacerbates stunting and threatens child survival. Of the number of stunted children
globally, about 39% are found in Africa.


14
When stunting is addressed, 45% of child deaths would be averted. Thus, the
COVID-19 pandemic will leave a legacy of improved hand washing habits in many
African communities and provide many compelling reasons to address household air
pollution. Governments should find the fiscal space to sustain the gains in hand washing
practices and to invest in clean cooking solutions that help reduce diseases associated
with poor sanitation and household air pollution, which will contribute to the
achievement of Sustainable Development Goals 6 and 7. Thus, when the hands are
contaminated with disease-causing the bacteria and viruses, these pathogens can enter the
body or pass from one person to another to cause disease. Further, both respiratory and
enteric pathogens are often transmitted on surfaces. The surface that is most often use to
inoculate body with infection is the skin of the hands (Adzam, 2012). Many of these
deaths can be prevented by hand washing with soap before microorganisms can enter the
body or spread to other people.
Schools are the key setting for the development of effective hand washing
promotion programs for many reasons. First, the school environment plays a key role in
many health outcomes. Second, many behaviors “track” into adulthood and promoting
health in adolescence is a key to reducing health inequities. Third, the school setting may
be more feasible for integrated, sustainable programs that allow delivery at scale, even
incorporating related preventive health behaviors such as adding face washing to prevent
trachoma to a hand washing program (PLOSONE, 2020). WHO (2009) also recommends
that hand cleansing patterns are most likely to be established in the first 10 years of life
basing on behavioural theories. Children are usually taught to wash their hands when they

15
are young, but reinforcement of hand washing by parents often decreases when children
reach school (Guinan, McGuckin, & Ali, 2002). Moreover, school children can be
important behavior change agents in the community and schools and with the help of
other students introduce and maintain changes in the school environment. (Tidwell,
Chipungu, Chilengi, Curtis & Aunger, 2018).
Parents and caretakers play an important role in teaching children to wash their
hands. Hand washing can become a lifelong healthy habit if you start teaching it at an
early age (CDC, 2020). School age is the most important period for turning personal
hygiene rules into behavior. Because it is a fact that personal hygiene rules can be turned
into behaviors easier in small ages. Kids take their first steps on being healthy individuals
by receiving new information from school and adding them to their previous health
knowledge gained from their parents. Training personal health habits properly in school
age will affect individual’s health in next years. Previous studies have indicated that
comprehensive hand-washing trainings are very successful in primary-school-age
children. (Cevizci, Uludag, Topaloglu, Babaoglu, Celik, & Bakar, 2014).). According to
Boshell (2017), educators and parents agree having shared responsibility in the promotion
of hand hygiene. However, spread of infectious diseases occurs faster in school settings
because of its population size which is high numbers of students (Teumta, Niba,
Ncheuveu, Ghumbemsitia, Itor, Chongwain, & Navti, 2019). Thus, school going children
are exposed to greater risks of diseases since they interact with several people inside the
campus wherein they are not aware who carry flu or does not. On the other hand,
Tambekar, Shirsat, & Suradkar, 2007) highlighted that college students may be exposed

16
to risk of infection. Even though this technique was taught at home by their parents, it
must be applied in the school setting because of exposure to higher risk and huge number
of students.
CDC enumerated key times when an individual is likely to acquire and spread
microbes such as before, during, and after preparing food, before eating food, before and
after caring for someone at home who is sick with vomiting or diarrhea, before and after
treating a cut or wound, after using the toilet, after changing diapers or cleaning up a
child who has used the toilet, after blowing nose, coughing, or sneezing, after touching an
animal, animal feed, or animal waste, after handling pet food or pet treats, and after
touching garbage. Hand washing can interrupt the chain of a variety of pathogens.
Moreover, Brueck (2019) asserted that it is best to wash hands after every visit to the
toilet because human feces carry pathogens like E. coli, Shigella, Streptococcus, hepatitis
A and E, and more. However, in a study conducted by Rabbi & Dey in 2013, it revealed
that hand washing before taking food (95%) is further done than after defecation (90%).
Similarly, Manandhar and Chayo (2018) reported that almost all (99.4%) students
reported that they wash hand before meal and 92.4% students reported that they practiced
hand washing after defecation.
With regards of the profile characteristics of students on gender, research revealed
that female students wash their hands more often and more effectively (using soap, longer
duration) after defecation than males (Mariwah, Hampshire, & Kasim, 2012). Moreover,
the researchers mentioned “the findings of this cross-sectional study can substantially
contribute to the understanding on the knowledge gap and public behavior towards hand

17
hygiene, thereby providing information on gender-specific health promotion activities
and campaigns to improve HH compliance.” Likewise, a significantly higher proportion
of females washed their hands ≥6 times a day when compared with the males. (Teumta et
al., 2019). Another result showed female respondents had a significantly better hand
washing knowledge than male respondents (Suen, So, Yeung, Lo, & Lam, 2019). This is
in line with other studies which revealed that females are more likely to wash their hands
frequently than males. Contrariwise, the study of Xuan and Hoat (2012) revealed that the
male students had better practice regarding hand washing than the female students.
Hand washing facilities like water must be accessible because a study by Curtis
and Cairncross (2003) showed that availability of convenient water tend to encourage
better hand washing practice. Moreover, Bekele, Rahman, & Rawstorne (2020) found
out that children with access to improved combined sanitation with hand washing
facilities had 29% lower odds of linear growth failure (stunting). Thereby, there must be a
functional flow of water to remove pathogens on hand (Burton, Cobb, Donachie, Judah,
Curtis, & Schmidt, 2011). Moreover, the study of Nazliansyah, Wichaikull, & Wetasin
(2016) demonstrated that the prevalence of proper hand washing was very low among the
school students and so they recommend that better facilities need to be more widely
available.
With regards of the water temperature, Michaels (2002) mentioned the 1999 FDA
Food Code that recommended utility of warm water of at least 43°C (110°F) in sinks
used for hand washing. However, water temperature had nothing to do with the efficacy

18
of removing pathogens when hand washing but rather the real danger on skin exist
Carrico, Spoden, Wallston, & Vandenbergh (2013). This is agreed priby (Berardesca,
Vignoli, Distante, Brizzi & Rabbiosi, 1995) who revealed that warmer temperatures have
been shown to be very significantly associated with skin irritation. Higher temperature
can cause skin irritations, loss of skin moisture content, and trans epidermal water loss.
On the other hand, CDC (2010) and UNICEF claimed that clean running water either
warm or cold can be used. Moreover, Donald Schaffner, a researcher at Rutgers
University who studies microbes and hand washing asserted that water temperature does
not matter,” says There is no difference in how many microorganisms remain, so he
recommends to use whatever feels good for an individual. Hence, the temperature of the
water does not appear to affect microbe removal (CDC, 2020).
Studies have shown that it is necessary to use soap when washing hands because
surfactants present in soap lift soil and microbes from skin and people tend to scrub
hands more thoroughly when using soap, which further removes germs. Furthermore,
hand washing with non-antibacterial soap and water is more effective for the removal of
bacteria of potential fecal origin from hands than hand washing with water alone and
should therefore be more useful for the prevention of transmission of diarrheal diseases
(Burton et al., 2011). To date, studies have shown that there is no added health benefit for
consumers (this does not include professionals in the healthcare setting) using soaps
containing antibacterial ingredients compared with using plain soap. As a result, FDA
issued a final rule in September 2016 that 19 ingredients in common “antibacterial”
soaps, including triclosan, were no more effective than non-antibacterial soap and water

19
and thus these products are no longer able to be marketed to the general public. This rule
does not affect hand sanitizers, wipes, or antibacterial products used in healthcare
settings.
In contrast, an experimental study conducted by (Pérez-Garza, García, & Heredia,
2017) discussed that antimicrobial soaps removed levels of E. coli similar to those
removed by distilled water and non-antimicrobial soap on hands contaminated with E.
coli at 103 CFU/g. However, when hands were contaminated with E. coli at 106 CFU/g,
more E. coli was removed with the antimicrobial soap containing chlorhexidine
gluconate. When hands were contaminated with E. faecalis at 103 CFU/g, bacteria were
removed more effectively with soaps containing chloroxylenol or chlorhexidine
gluconate. When hands were contaminated with E. faecalis at 106 CFU/g, all of the
antimicrobial soaps were more effective for removing the bacteria than were distilled
water and non-antimicrobial soap. E. coli grew in all of the hand washing rinsates except
that containing triclosan, whereas E. faecalis from the 106 CFU/g treatments grew in
rinsates containing chlorhexidine gluconate and in the distilled water rinsates. Washing
with antimicrobial soap was more effective for reducing bacteria on soiled hands than
was washing with water or non-antimicrobial soap. However, persistence or growth of
bacteria in these rinsates poses health risks.
As the last step of hand washing, hand drying is an essential step after hand
washing because hands can be recontaminated if hand drying is not properly done and
cross contamination may occur. The transmission of bacteria is more likely to occur from

20
wet skin than from dry skin; therefore, the proper drying of hands after washing should
be an integral part of the hand hygiene process in health care. This article systematically
reviews the research on the hygienic efficacy of different hand-drying methods. On the
other hand, most studies suggest that paper towels can dry hands efficiently, remove
bacteria effectively, and cause less contamination of the washroom environment. From a
hygiene viewpoint, paper towels are superior to electric air dryers. Paper towels should
be recommended in locations where hygiene is paramount, such as hospitals and clinics
(Huang, Ma, & Stack, 2012).
Additionally, a study of Yamamoto, Ugai, & Takahashi (2005) discussed that the
log colony-forming units (CFU) on palms and fingers increased significantly when hands
were dried with warm air while being rubbed for 15 seconds, and many bacteria remained
at 30 seconds without ultraviolet light. Holding hands stationary while drying
significantly decreased log CFU on palms, fingers, and fingertips. Few CFU were
detected on palms and fingers dried with ultraviolet light. Although log CFU of palms
and fingers did not decrease after drying with three sheets of paper towel, those of
fingertips decreased significantly. For palms and fingers, log reductions were greater with
warm air drying while holding hands stationary, paper towels, and warm air drying while
rubbing hands. For fingertips, the log reduction was often greater with paper towels than
with warm air. Ultraviolet light reinforced the removal of bacteria during warm air
drying. Paper towels were useful for removing bacteria from fingertips but not palms and
fingers. Indeed, hand washing can interrupt the chain of a variety of pathogens if taught
properly and individuals have a positive attitude on this technique. It benefits the health

21
of people and thereby must be widely instil to people and practice it regularly and
properly.
SYNTHESIS
Researches revealed that female students wash their hands more often and more
effectively than males (Mariwah et al. 2012). Likewise, a significantly higher proportion
of females washed their hands ≥6 times a day when compared with the males. (Teumta et
al. 2019). Another result showed female respondents had a significantly better hand
washing knowledge than male respondents (Suen et al. 2019). In contrast, the study of
Xuan and Hoat (2012) asserted that male students have better knowledge on hand
hygiene than female students. On the other hand, both male and female nursing students
have moderate knowledge on hand hygiene (Cruz, Cruz, & Al-Otaibi, 2015).
On the variable department, the study of Taylor, James & Basco, Roselyne &
Zaied, Aya & Ward, Chelsea in 2010 showed that science majors were more likely to
wash their hands than non-science majors (p < or = 0.001, chi2 = 5.2) while a study
revealed that there was no significant difference in knowledge on hand hygiene between
medical and no medical students (Nuwagaba, Ashok, Balizzakiwa, Kisengula, Nagaddya,
& Rutayisire, 2020). With these previous studies, the researchers considered on studying
the knowledge and practices of non-allied health students.


22
What makes the current study different from above-mentioned studies is that it is
conducted during pandemic which is very relevant in today’s situation. College students
are most likely to be the first one to experience face-to-face classes and therefore,
assessing their knowledge and practice is a must before going back to school to prevent
rapid transmission of microorganims which can cause infections. Moreover, the tool used
is adopted from one of the books of Allied Health Course and is also a tool used for
Related Learning Experience (RLE) period.


23
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study will use quantitative method of research and a random sampling
method. The dependent variables include the non-allied health students’ knowledge and
practices towards in hand washing while the independent variables are gender and
department.
Research Environment
This study will be carried out among non-allied health students who are currently
enrolled at Saint Mary’s University Bayombong, Nueva, Vizcaya.
Research Respondents
The population of interest will be NAHS who are officially enrolled and are
attending the academic year 2020-2021. The target population for this study will be any
NAHS who are in any course and they will be randomly selected. The study population
will consist of all year levels of NAHS from SAB, SEAIT and STEH. The total
population of SAB, SEAIT and STEH is 2, 434 and the researchers use the sample size
calculator by Survey Monkey which uses the formula:
Using z=1.96, e=.05, confidence level of 95%, the
sample size computed is 332.


24
Research Instrument
The tool is adapted from the book of “Fundamentals of Nursing” (Berman et al,
2016). The researchers created a qualitative description for every value in Likert Scale.
The questionnaire will be composed of four sections which include informed consent,
profile characteristics, knowledge of NAHS regarding hand washing, and NAHS
practices on hand washing. In the informed consent part, the respondents will put a check
mark if they agree or do not. If they agree, they will proceed to the next sections; if not,
they will discontinue viewing the questionnaire and will not proceed to the next sections.
For the second section (profile characteristics), the researchers will indicate the sign
'required' for those questions that are important to answer and mark “optional” on the
name for anonymity purposes. The third section (knowledge of NAHS regarding hand
washing) will be answered through Likert Scale with the following description: 4-
strongly agree, 3-agree, 2-disagree, 1-strongly disagree. And for the fourth section
(NAHS practices on hand washing), the description will be: 4-always, 3-often, 2-seldom,
1-never.
Data Gathering Procedure
After targeting the population which is the NAHS, the researchers will send letter
of request to the academic deans of SAB, STEH and SEAIT. If the academic deans will
approve it, the conduct of survey will be started. The questionnaire will be floated via

25
sending the Google Document questionnaire link or QR Code containing the
questionnaire to the respondents through social media platform (Messenger). After the
respondents answer the questions, the researchers will automatically receive the data in a
summary form for each questionnaire section. The gathered data will be tabulated and
tallied.
Data Gathering Procedure
Selection of the study population
Get approval from the Academic Deans
Letter of Approval
Sending of Google Document Link or QR Code of Questionnaires to Non-

Allied Health Students via Messenger
Data Collection
Figure 2: Flowchart of the Study


26
Data Analysis
For the second section (profile characteristics), the data will be analyzed through
Frequency and Percent Distribution. While the third section (knowledge of NAHS
regarding hand washing) and fourth section (practice of NAHS on hand washing) will
utilize Means and Standard Deviations.
The scale for the third section (knowledge of NAHS regarding hand washing):
Scale AWM Descriptive Interpretation

4 Strongly Agree 3.50 to 4.49 Very good hand washing knowledge
3 Agree 2.50 to 3.49 Good hand washing knowledge
2 Disagree 1.50 to 2.49 Fair hand washing knowledge
1 Strongly Disagree 1.00 to 1.49 Poor hand washing knowledge
The scale for the fourth section (NAHS practices on hand washing):
Scale AWM Descriptive Interpretation

4 Always 3.50 to 4.49 Highly proper hand washing practice
3 Often 2.50 to 3.49 Good hand washing practice
2 Seldom 1.50 to 2.49 Fair hand washing practice
1 Never 1.00 to 1.49 Improper hand washing practice
To prove the hypothesis, for the variables, Gender will utilize independent
samples t-Test (or Mann-Whitney U Test), while Department variable will use One-way
ANOVA (or Kruskal-Wallis H Test).


27
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents the data gathered, statistically analyzed and interpreted.
Table 1 shows the profile characteristics of the respondents of the study in terms
of sex and department.
Table 1
Profile Characteristics of the Respondents of the Study

Profile Variable Categories Frequency Percent
Sex Male 102 30.5
Female 232 69.5
Department SAB 131 39.2
STEH 91 27.2
SEAIT 112 33.5
Total Respondents 334 100.0
Figure 3.
A total of 334 students participated in the study. Among the total, majority of the
respondents are female (69.5%) and 30.5% of the respondents are male. Also, most of the
respondents are from the department of SAB with a frequency of 131 (39.2%), followed
by department of SEAIT with a frequency of 112 (33.5%) and the department of STEH
having a frequency of 91 (27.2%). It was agreed that with regards of the profile
characteristics of students on gender regarding hand washing, research revealed that
female students wash their hands more oftens than the male effectively as stated by
(Mariwah et al., 2012). Moreover, the researchers concluded that “the findings of this
cross-sectional study can substantially contribute to the understanding on the knowledge
gap and public behavior towards hand hygiene, thereby providing information on gender-

28
specific health promotion activities and campaigns to improve hand hygiene
compliance.” Likewise, a significantly higher proportion of females washed their hands
≥6 times a day when compared with the males (Teumta et al., 2019). Another study
showed female respondents had a significantly better hand washing knowledge than male
respondents (Suen et al., 2019). This is in line with other studies which revealed that
females are more likely to wash their hands frequently than males.
Table 2
Item Mean SD Level of
Knowledge
1. The nails should be kept short. 3.7066 .56750 Very Good
2. Jewelries must be removed before 3.6826 .62568 Very Good
washing the hands.
3. Check the hands for breaks in the skin

3.4760 .63271 Good
before washing the hands.
4. There is a need to wash the hands before 3.8263 .61495 Very Good
eating.
5. There is a need to wash the hands after

3.7934 .53901 Very Good
eating.

3.9401 .34136 Very Good
coming from the toilet.

3.9371 .33638 Very Good
handling garbage.
8. There is a need to wash after coughing 3.6826 .55442 Very Good

or blowing your nose.
9. Twenty (20) seconds is the ideal time or

duration of handwashing. 3.4671 .73345 Good
Knowledge Very
3.7236 .34322
Good

29
Figure 4: Knowledge of NAHS regarding Handwashing

Table 2 presents the level of knowledge of NAHS regarding handwashing. The
knowledge of the respondents was assessed and categorized as very good (3.50 to 4.49),
good (2.50 to 3.49), fair (1.50 to 2.49), and poor (1.00 to 1.49). It can be seen from the
table that the respondents’ answer to the item “There is a need to wash the hands after
coming from the toilet.” have the highest mean of 3.9401 (s=.34136) which means that
among the items under knowledge on handwashing, this is the item that they are most
knowledgeable. It is followed by “There is a need to wash the hands after handling
garbage.” with a mean of 3.9371 (s=.33638). On the other hand, “Twenty (20) seconds is
the ideal time or duration of handwashing.” is the item that has the lowest mean (3.4671,
s=.73345) which means that this is the item they are least knowledgeable about
handwashing. In general, the NAHS have very good knowledge on handwashing,
M=3.7236, s=.34322.
The above results are supported by the study of Agbana, Ogundeji, & Owoseni
(2020) wherein majority of their respondents (98.95%) have a good handwashing
knowledge. It was mentioned that the reason why respondents had good knowledge of
hand hygiene is likely due to their training in school and the public campaign on hand
hygiene in their country as a result of the recent Ebola virus disease and perennial Lassa
fever infection. Similarly, majority of the participants (80.9%) in the study of Mbroh
(2019) also had a good level of knowledge of hand hygiene. In addition, it was revealed
that majority (63%) of female college students washed their hands after using the
bathroom; which is also the item where NAHS are most knowledgeable M=3.9401

30
(s=.34136). Contrariwise, students did not have desired level of knowledge on hand
hygiene in the study of Gebreeyessus and Adem (2018) but still keep on practicing it.
Table 3
Practice Mean SD Extent of
Practice
1. I wet my hands thoroughly by holding them
3.6647 .52688 Highly Proper
under running water.
2. I wash my hands with water and soap. 3.8084 .43058 Highly Proper
3. I hold my hands lower than the elbows. 3.1557 .73909 Good
4. I rub the soap firmly between the hands. 3.5689 .59507 Highly Proper
5. I use firm rubbing and circular movements
3.4551 .63630 Good
to wash the palm of each hand.
3.3683 .65692 Good
to wash the back of each hand.
3.3054 .67306 Good
to wash the wrist of each hand.
to wash the heel of the hand (lower part of the 3.2784 .69123 Good
hand).
9. I interlace the fingers and thumbs and move
3.3473 .68382 Good
the hands back and forth.
10. I rub my right palm over the back of my
3.4132 .67779 Good
left hand and vice-versa.
11. I rub both of my palms with fingers
3.5150 .60881 Highly Proper
interlaced.
12. I rub the backs of my fingers to opposing
3.4371 .68921 Good
palms with fingers interlocked.
13. I rub my left thumb rotationally clasped in
3.3084 .73774 Good
right palm and vice-versa.
14. I rub the fingertips against the palm of the
3.3084 .72955 Good
opposite hand.
15. I rinse my hands under running water 3.7275 .50880 Highly Proper
16. I thoroughly pat dry my hands and arms
with paper towel/clean towel without 3.2874 .71536 Good
scrubbing.
17. I use new paper towel/clean towel to turn
off the water. 2.5479 1.00260 Good
Practice 3.3822 .43334 Good

Figure 5. Practice of NAHS on handwashing.

31
Table 3 shows the extent of practice of NAHS on handwashing. The practice of
the respondents was assessed and categorized as highly proper (3.50 to 4.49), good (2.50
to 3.49), fair (1.50 to 2.49), and improper (1.00 to 1.49). The number 2 item “I wash my
hand with water and soap” have the highest mean (M=3.8084, s=.43058) which means
that among the items under the practices on handwashing, this is the item that they
practice the most. It is followed by “I rinse my hands under running water” with a mean
of 3.7275 (s=.50880). While the number 1 question “I wet my hands thoroughly by
holding them under running water has the third highest mean of 3.6647 (s=.52688). On
the other hand, the respondents use new paper towel/clean towel to turn off the water
very often with the mean of 2.5479 (1.00260) as shown in the item 17 which is labelled
as good. Generally, the NAHS have a good practice on handwashing, M=3.3822,
s=43334.
It was agreed with the “17 Handwashing Facts and Statistics” that around 33% of
people don’t use soap when washing their hands. That means around 67% of people use
soap when washing their hands still greater than that of 33%. Another study that agrees is
a cross-sectional survey that was carried out in a medical college hospital in Pune. The
compliance to the WHO guidelines regarding adequate hand hygiene was higher in their
study that 91% agrees and practice hand washing with soap and water rather than 64%
for alcohol based rubs. However, a study in Bamenda, which is the capital of the North
West Region of Cameroon reveal that the majority of the students had poor hand washing
practice score and the prevalence of hand washing with soap is low. The participants in
this study indicated the lack of handwashing facilities as the reasons for not practicing the
proper hand washing technique.


32
Table 4
Level of Sig (2-
Gender N Mean SD t df Remark
Knowledge tailed)
Male 102 3.6863 .59670 Very Good
K1 -.433 332 .665 Not Sig
Female 232 3.7155 .55527 Very Good
Male 102 3.5686 .72453 Very Good
K2 -2.027 158.611 .044 Sig
Male 102 3.4314 .63729 Good -.855
K3 332 .393 Not Sig
Female 232 3.4957 .63107 Good
Male 102 3.7255 .75984 Very Good -1.749 146.799
K4 .082 Not Sig
Male 102 3.7451 .59180 Very Good
K5 -1.087 332 .278 Not Sig
Male 102 3.9216 .39013 Very Good -.658
K6 332 .511 Not Sig
Male 102 3.8922 .44292 Very Good -1.364 136.630
K7 .175 Not Sig
Male 102 3.6275 .54358 Very Good -1.207
K8 332 .228 Not Sig
Male 102 3.4020 .70724 Good -1.076
K9 332 .283 Not Sig
Female 232 3.4957 .74437 Good
K Male 102 3.6667 .38043 Very Good -1.894
167.895 .060 Not Sig
Figure 6. Significant Difference Between NAHS Knowledge on Hand Washing
According to Gender
As seen in Table 4, the mean of the knowledge of female respondents (M=3.7486,
s=.32324) is higher than the male respondents (M=3.6667, s=.38043) corresponding to a
very good level of knowledge. Furthermore, the t-test shows that the difference on the
knowledge in terms of sex is not significant with t(167.895) = -1.894, p=.060.
Researches supported the result of the study as it revealed that female students
wash their hands more often and more effectively than males (Mariwah et al., 2012).
Another study showed that the female respondents better hand hygiene knowledge than

33
male respondents (Tao, Cheng, Lu, Hu, & Chen, 2013). Likewise, a significantly higher
proportion of females washed their hands ≥6 times a day when compared with the males
(Teumta et al., 2019). While in a recent study regarding COVID 19 measures by Guzek,
Skolmowska, & Głabska (2020), it also showed that female students exhibited a higher
level of knowledge on hand hygiene and personal protection, as well as better behaviors,
compared to males. In contrast, the study of Xuan and Hoat (2012) revealed that the male
students had better practice on hand washing than the female students. On the other hand,
both male and female nursing students have moderate knowledge on hand hygiene (Cruz,
et al. 2015).
Monk-Turner, Edwards, Broadstone, Hummel, Lewis, & Wilson (2005) supported
the result as it revealed in their study that there was no significance in gender and the
likelihood of washing one's hands. On the other hand, it is contradicted in the study of
Taylor et al. (2010) and Suen et al. (2019) wherein it showed that the females scored
significantly higher than males.


34
Table 5
Department N Mean SD
Level df F Sig R
K1 Very
SAB 131 3.7710 .43967
Good
Very
STEH 91 3.7802 .51212
Good
2,331 4.898 .008 Sig
Very
SEAIT 112 3.5714 .70665
Good
Very
Total 334 3.7066 .56750
Good
K2 SAB Very
131 3.7066 .56750
Good
STEH Very
91 3.6031 .69812
Good 2,331 3.969 .020 Sig
SEAIT Very
112 3.8352 .45372
Good
Total 334 3.6826 .62568
K3 SAB Very 2,331
131 3.6518 .63968 5.676 .004
Good
STEH Very
91 3.6826 .62568 Sig
Good
SEAIT 112 3.4351 .60890 Good
Total 334 3.4760 .63271 Good
K4 SAB Very
131 3.6593 .58156
Good
Not
STEH 91 3.3750 .67283 Good 2,331 .226 .798
SEAIT 112 Good Sig
Total 334 3.8263 .61495
K5 SAB Very
131 3.8473 .60094
Good
STEH Very
91 3.7912 .64147
Good 2,331 3.126 .045 Sig
SEAIT Very
112 3.8304 .61349
Good
Total 334 3.7934 .53901
K6 SAB Very
131 3.8263 .61495
Good
STEH Very
91 3.8168 .44379 Not
Good 2, 331 .798 .451
SEAIT Very Sig
112 3.8791 .44310
Good
Total 334 3.9401 .34136

35
K7 SAB Very
131 3.6964 .68233
Good
Not
STEH Very 2, 331 1.229 .294
91 3.7934 .53901
Good Sig
SEAIT 112 3.9695 .17271 Very
Total 334 3.9371 .33638 Good
K8 SAB Very
131 3.9231 .37210
Good
STEH Very
91 3.9196 .44799 Not
Good 2, 331 1.143 .320
SEAIT Very Sig
112 3.9401 .34136
Good
Total 334 3.6826 .55442
K9 SAB Very
131 3.9695 .21264
Good
STEH Very
91 3.9341 .35908
Good 2, 331 3.379 .035 Sig
SEAIT Very
112 3.9018 .42362
Good
Total 334 3.4671 .73345
K SAB Very
131 3.9371 .33638
Good
STEH Very
91 3.7328 .46118
Good
SEAIT Very 2, 331 3.833 .023 Sig
112 3.6813 .61245
Good
Total Very
334 3.7236 .34322
Good
Figure 7. Significant Difference Between NAHS Knowledge on Hand Washing
According to Department
As seen in Table 5, the mean of the knowledge of handwashing according to
department revealed that SAB is highest (M=3.9361, s=.33638) among the departments,
wherein STEH (M=3.7328, s=.46118) is the second highest and the lowest is SEAIT
(M=3.6813, s=.61245). In general, ANOVA showed that the significant difference
between NAHS knowledge on handwashing according to department is significant
F(2,331)=3.833, p=.023. Contradictory, the result did not yield on the study of

36
Nuwagaba, et al. (2020) revealing that there was no significant difference in knowledge
on hand hygiene between medical and non-medical students.
Table 6
Dependent
Variable (I) Department (J) Department Mean Difference (I-J) Sig.
*
K1 SAB SEAIT .19956 .017
*
STEH SEAIT .20879 .024
K2 SAB STEH -.23211* .018
*
K3 SAB STEH -.22423 .024
STEH SEAIT .28434* .004
*
K5 STEH SEAIT .18269 .043
K9 STEH SEAIT .26717* .026
*
K STEH SEAIT .13103 .018
Figure 8. Multiple Comparison Between NAHS Knowledge on Hand Washing
As seen in the table of multiple comparison, significant difference is present in the
overall knowledge of K1, K2, K3, K4, K5 and K9. The K1 of SAB is significantly
greater than the K1 of SEAIT (p = 0.017) and the K1 of STEH is significantly greater
than SEAIT (p=.024). The K2 of SAB is less than that of STEH and is significant (p=
0.018). The K3 of SAB is significantly less than that of STEH (p=0.024). The K3
of STEH is significantly greater than SEAIT (p=.004). STEH is significantly greater than
SEAIT in K5 (p=.043) and K9 (p=.026). The mean differences show that the knowledge
of students in SAB is significantly higher than students of SEAIT. However, when SAB
and STEH are compared, STEH is significantly higher than SAB.
Since some courses in STEH are linked to sciences such as psychology and
teacher, the result of the study is agreed in the study conducted by researchers from
Faculty of Science Research Group, Catholic University of Cameroon, which confirms


37
that being a science major student positively associated with hand washing knowledge
score (Teumta et al., 2019). There is a link between a general knowledge of science and
hand washing. Science majors were significantly more likely to wash their hands than
non-science majors. It indicates that their general information on bacteria, pathogens, and
the immune system received in their courses is influencing a students’ hygiene behavior
outside of the class room (Taylor et al., 2010).
Table 7
Extent of Sig (2-
Gender N Mean SD t df Remark
Practice tailed)
Male 102 3.6765 .49074 Highly Proper
P1 .271 332 .787 Not Sig
Female 232 3.6595 .54296 Highly Proper
P2 -1.421 169.092 .157 Not Sig
Male 102 3.1373 .66062 Good
P3 -.302 332 .763 Not Sig
Female 232 3.1638 .77229 Good
Male 102 3.5098 .62529 Highly Proper 332
P4 -1.203 .230 Not Sig
Male 102 3.4412 .60646 Good
P5 -.265 332 .791 Not Sig
Female 232 3.4612 .65018 Good
Male 102 3.3431 .65242 Good
P6 -.463 332 .644 Not Sig
Female 232 3.3793 .65999 Good
Male 102 3.3529 .62374 Good
P7 .856 332 .393 Not Sig
Female 232 3.2845 .69389 Good
Male 102 3.2745 .66238 Good -.069
P8 332 .945 Not Sig
Female 232 3.2802 .70493 Good
Male 102 3.3137 .67458 Good
P9 -.594 332 .553 Not Sig
Female 232 3.3621 .68877 Good
P10 Male 102 3.3235 .69170 Good
-1.607 332 .109 Not Sig
Female 232 3.4526 .66930 Good
Male 102 3.4902 .64093 Good
P11 -.493 332 .623 Not Sig
Male 102 3.4412 .72540 Good
P12 .071 332 .943 Not Sig
Female 232 3.4353 .67430 Good
Male 102 3.3333 .73570 Good
P13 .409 332 .683 Not Sig
Female 232 3.2974 .73995 Good
Male 102 3.2941 .69778 Good
P14 -.237 332 .813 Not Sig
Female 232 3.3147 .74448 Good

38

P15 -1.385 173.618 .168 Not Sig
Male 102 3.1176 .66443 Good
P16 -3.009 209.472 .003 Sig
Female 232 3.3621 .72550 Good
Male 102 2.6373 .98292 Good
P17 1.080 332 .281 Not Sig
Female 232 2.5086 1.01073 Good
Male 102 3.3593 .41205 Good
P -.640 332 .523 Not Sig
Female 232 3.3922 .44287 Good
Figure 9. Significant Difference Between Practices of NAHS on Hand Washing
According to Gender
Table 7 shows the extent of practice of NAHS on handwashing. As seen in table,
the overall mean of the practice of female respondents (M=3.3922, s=.44287) is higher
than the male respondents (M=3.3593, s=.41205). Furthermore, the t-test shows that the
difference on the knowledge and their profile variable gender is not significant
t(332)=-.640, p=.523. The number 2 question “I wash my hand with water and soap”,
gender female has the highest mean of 3.8319 (s=.40795) rather than male with a mean of
3.7549 (s=.40795) which means that among the items under the practice on handwashing,
this is the item that they practice most. It is followed by “I rinse my hands under running
water” female have a mean of 3.7543 (s=.48793) that is higher than male with a mean of
3.6667 (s=.55103) which means female more practice rinsing hands under a running
water. This table shows, female have a higher practice rather than male on handwashing
according to their gender.
The study of Jamalluddin T.Z.M.T. et., al (2020) entitled “Assessment on Hand
Hygiene Knowledge and Practices Among Pre-school Children in Klang Valley” shows
that children’s hand hygiene practices were then compared according to the gender, age
and pre-schools as shown. Females scored higher than males in handwashing technique.

39
However, the score was similar for hand hygiene routine. It was revealed that students at
School P attained higher scores of handwashing technique and hand hygiene routine
compared to School C. Hence being female and attending school P were significant
attributes for higher handwashing technique score. For hand hygiene routine, attending
school P was the only significant attribute. Even though, 6 years old performed slightly
better in handwashing technique and hand hygiene routine, age was not statistically
significant.
De Alwis W.R. (2012) study on hand contamination and handwashing practices
support the results by revealing that all 60 students claimed to have washed their hands
after using the toilet. When asked about soap use, 40 (66.7%) subjects claimed to have
washed their hands with soap while the rest claimed to have washed their hands with
water only. Among the female students 83% used soap, while only 50% of male students
said they used soap. Handwashing after toilet use was reported by all subjects with or
without soap. However, this may be an overestimate as it is possible that the responses
given were intended to be socially acceptable. Female students expressed better hand-
hygiene practices than did the male students. These results were coherent with previous
observational studies. Females were reported to wash hands more often as well as more
thoroughly and had less bacterial load on their hands than the males The reason for this
consistent variation between genders remains debatable although one study on female
hand washing practices showed that females tend to improve hand hygiene habits in the
presence of other toilet users in the sink area.


40
Table 8
Dep. N Mean SD Extent df F Sig Remark

P1 SAB 131 3.6031 .57752
Highly
Proper
STEH 91 3.7912 .43503
Highly
2,331 3.773 .024 Sig
Proper
SEAIT 112 3.6339 .51980
Highly
Proper
Total 334 3.6647 .52688
Highly
Proper
P2 SAB 131 3.8397 .40794
Highly
Proper
STEH 91 3.8352 .37309
Highly
2,331 1.557 .212 Not Sig
Proper
SEAIT 112 3.7500 .49320
Highly
Proper
Total 334 3.8084 .43058
Highly
Proper
P3 SAB 131 3.1679 .66970 Good
2,
STEH 91 3.1319 .89702 Good .067 .935 Not Sig
331
SEAIT 112 3.1607 .67855 Good
Total 334 3.1557 .73909 Good
P4 SAB 131 3.6260 .55934
Highly
Proper
2,
STEH 91 3.4835 .62116 Good 1.545 .215 Not Sig
331
SEAIT 112 3.5714 .61093
Highly
Proper
Total 334 3.5689 .59507
Highly
Proper
P5 SAB 131 3.4962 .63699 Good
2,
STEH 91 3.4286 .61721 Good .448 .639 Not Sig
331
SEAIT 112 3.4286 .65367 Good
Total 334 3.4551 .63630 Good
P6 SAB 131 3.4580 .64759 Good
2,
STEH 91 3.3077 .69430 Good 2.025 .134 Not Sig
331
SEAIT 112 3.3125 .63005 Good
Total 334 3.3683 .65692 Good
P7 SAB 131 3.3282 .63782 Good
2,
STEH 91 3.2637 .72778 Good .255 .775 Not Sig
331
SEAIT 112 3.3125 .67158 Good
Total 334 3.3054 .67306 Good
P8 SAB 131 3.3130 .69153 Good
STEH 91 3.2198 .67991 Good 2,331 .496 .609 Not Sig
SEAIT 112 3.2857 .70300 Good
Total 334 3.2784 .69123 Good
P9 SAB 131 3.4122 .67790 Good
2,
STEH 91 3.2308 .70043 Good 1.956 .142 Not Sig
331
SEAIT 112 3.3661 .67110 Good

41
Total 334 3.3473 .68382 Good

P10 SAB 131 3.4809 .63671 Good
2,
STEH 91 3.2637 .71235 Good 3.122 0.45 Sig
331
SEAIT 112 3.4554 .68298 Good
Total 334 3.4132 .67779 Good
P11 SAB 131 3.5573 .58389
Highly
Proper
2,
STEH 91 3.3956 .64772 Good 2.427 .090 Not Sig
331
SEAIT 112 3.5625 .59701
Highly
Proper
Highly
Total 334 3.5150 .60881 Proper
P12 SAB 131 3.4046 .72088 Good
STEH 91 3.3736 .69360 Good 2,
1.484 .228 Not Sig
SEAIT Highly 331
112 3.5268 .64319 Proper
Total 334 3.4371 .68921 Good
P13 SAB 131 3.3206 .74696 Good
2,
STEH 91 3.2198 .74240 Good 1.017 .363 Not Sig
331
SEAIT 112 3.3661 .72280 Good
Total 334 3.3084 .73774 Good
P14 SAB 131 3.3511 .66707 Good
2,
STEH 91 3.2747 .78974 Good .375 .688 Not Sig
331
SEAIT 112 3.2857 .75252 Good
Total 334 3.3084 .72955 Good
P15 SAB 131 3.7481 .50144
Highly
Proper
STEH Highly 2,
91 3.6923 .55161 Proper
.328 .720 Not Sig
331
SEAIT 112 3.7321 .48364
Highly
Proper
Total 334 3.7275 .50880
Highly
Proper
P16 SAB 131 3.2748 .71310 Good
2,
STEH 91 3.3626 .65856 Good .757 .470 Not Sig
331
SEAIT 112 3.2411 .76223 Good
Total 334 3.2874 .71536 Good
P17 SAB 131 2.4351 .95353 Good
2,
STEH 91 2.7363 1.11390 Good
331 2.482 .085 Not Sig
SEAIT 112 2.5268 .94878 Good
Total 334 2.5479 1.00260 Good
P SAB 131 3.4010 .42748 Good
STEH 91 3.3536 .44648 Good 2,
.321 .726 Not Sig
SEAIT 112 3.3834 .43197 Good 331
Total 334 3.3822 .43334 Good
Figure 10. Significant Difference Between Practices of NAHS on Hand Washing

42
Table 8 shows the significant difference between the practice of handwashing and
respective departments. It shows that the SAB has the highest mean (M=3.4010,
s=.42748), SEAIT as the second (M=3.3834, s=.43197) and lastly, the STEH
(M=3.3536,s=.44648). Generally, the ANOVA result showed that there is no significant
difference between NAHS practice on handwashing and their department
F(2,331)=.321, p=.726.
Li et al. (2019) opposed this result as their study yielded that patients from
different departments have significant difference to their practice on handwashing.
Patients in ‘medical department’ showed significantly higher PHH performance
compared with those in ‘Department of Obstetrics/Gynaecology’.
Table 9
Dependent
Variable (I) Department (J) Department Mean Difference (I-J) Sig.
P1 SAB STEH -.18816 .024
P10 SAB STEH .21718 .049
Figure 11. Multiple Comparison Between Practices of NAHS on Hand Washing

Table 9 shows that the significant difference exists only between SAB and STEH
in P1 which is wetting the hands thoroughly by holding them under running water
(p=.024) and P10 which is rubbing the right palm over the back of the left hand and vice-
versa (p=.049). The mean differences show that the P1 of SAB is less than that of STEH
and is significant (p=.024). However, the three departments have the same extent of
practice on handwashing when it comes to wetting the hands thoroughly by holding them
under running water.


43
On the other hand, the P10 of SAB is significantly greater than STEH (p=.049)
and is greater than SEAIT but is not significant (p=.953). While the P10 of STEH is less
than SEAIT but is not significant (p=.110). It implicates that SAB has the greatest extent
of practice among the three but when STEH and SEAIT, and SAB and SEAIT are
compared, they are not significantly different which means that students from these three
departments have the same extent of practice.


44
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION
Handwashing technique is an essential practice that must be reiterated to the
public especially during time of pandemic. It is vital in breaking the chain of infection
which could eventually slow down the spread of most of infections. This study identified
the profile characteristics of the NAHS who are potential for face to face classes and be
exposed to the public in the near future. Therefore, the researchers probed their level of
knowledge and extent of practice on handwashing. Additonally, the study also identified
the significant difference between the variables. The findings of study foster new ways of
enhancing knowledge and skills towards handwashing and remind not only the
respondents, but also their family, teachers in the institution and school administrators
regarding the adherence and promotion of a healthy lifestyle.
Among the total respondents who participated in the study, majority of the
respondents are female (69.5%) and 30.5% of the respondents are male. Also, most of the
respondents are from the department of SAB with a frequency of 131 (39.2%), followed
by department of SEAIT with a frequency of 112 (33.5%) and the department of STEH
having a frequency of 91 (27.2%). NAHS have very good knowledge on handwashing
(M=3.7236, s=.34322) but only have a good practice on handwashing (M=3.3822,
s=43334).

45
The mean of the knowledge of female respondents (M=3.7486, s=.32324) is
higher that those male respondents (M=3.6667, s=.38043). However, there is no
significant difference between knowledge and gender t(167.895) =-1.894, p=.060. With
regards of the department, there is a significant difference between NAHS knowledge on
handwashing and department (F(2,331)=3.833p=.023) wherein the knowledge of students
in SAB is significantly higher than students of SEAIT. However, when SAB and STEH
are compared, STEH is significantly higher than SAB.
With regards of the practice on handwashing and gender, the mean of the practice
of female respondents (M=3.3922, s=.44287) is higher that those male respondents
(M=3.3593, s=.41205) but is not significant t(332)=-.640 p=.523. On the other hand, the
results from the department and practice showed that the SAB highly proper practice
handwashing (M=3.4010, s=.42748), while SEAIT (M=3.3834, s=.43197) and STEH
(M=3.3536,s=.44648) have good practice. However, there is no significant difference
between NAHS practice on handwashing and their department F(2,331)=.321, p=.726. It
means that NAHS students have the same practice on performing handwashing.
Finally, it may be concluded that NAHS have very good handwashing knowledge.
However, they only performed good handwashing technique when it comes to practice.
The study proved the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between
NAHS gender and their knowledge and practice on handwashing, however, the variable
department has significant difference to their knowledge and practice on handwashing.


46
The researchers recommends to study the the gap between the knowledge and practice
and observe the skills performed by the students for accuracy.


47
References
Aiello, A.E., Coulborn R.M., Perez V., & Larson E.L. (2008) Effect of Hand Hygiene on
Infectious Disease Risk in the Community Setting: A Meta-Analysis. Am J Pub
Health, 2008; 98(8): 1372-81. Retrieved
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2446461/#
Adzam, E. (2012). The Efficacy of Cleansing Agents in Handwashing. Retrieved
http://ir.knust.edu.gh/bitstream/123456789/4593/1/ELIZABETH%20ADZAM.pf
Allegranzi B, Memish ZA, Donaldson L, et al. (2009) Religion and culture: potential
undercurrents influencing hand hygiene promotion in health care. American
Journal of Infection Control. 2009 Feb;37(1):28-34. DOI:
10.1016/j.ajic.2008.01.014. Retrieved
https://europepmc.org/article/med/18834738
Amegah, A. K. (2020, September). Improving Handwashing Habits and Household Air
Quality. Retrieved https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-
109X(20)30353-3/fulltext
Anderson, Joy & Warren, Cynthia & Perez, Elena & Louis, Reggie & Phillips, Stephanie
& Wheeler, Jean & Cole, Melissa & Misra, Ranjita. (2008). Gender And Ethnic
Differences In Hand Hygiene Practices Among College Students. American
journal of infection control. 36. 361-8. 10.1016/j.ajic.2007.09.007. Retrieved
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5318209_Gender_and_ethnic_differenc
es_in_hand_hygiene_practices_among_college_students
Berardesca E, Vignoli GP, Distante F, Brizzi P, & Rabbiosi G. (1995). Effects of water
temperature on surfactant-induced skin irritation. Contact Dermatitis.
1995;32(2):83-87. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1995.tb00751.x Retrieved
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7758326/
Berman, A., Snyder, S., & Frandsen, G. (2016). Kozier & Erb’s Fundamentals of
Nursing. Tenth Edition, page 639
Bekele T, Rahman B, & Rawstorne P. (2020). The effect of access to water, sanitation
and handwashing facilities on child growth indicators: Evidence from the
Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2016. PLoS One. 2020 Sep
22;15(9):e0239313. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239313. PMID: 32960921;
PMCID: PMC7508389. Retrieved https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32960921/
Boshell, P. (2017). The Importance of Hand Hygiene At Home and School. Retrieved
https://info.debgroup.com/blog/hand-hygiene-at-home-and-school
Burton, M., Cobb, E., Donachie, P., Judah, G., Curtis, V., & Schmidt, W. P. (2011). The
effect of handwashing with water or soap on bacterial contamination of
hands. International journal of environmental research and public health, 8(1),
97–104. Retrievedhttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8010097
Brueck, H. (2019). Do You Really Have To Wash Your Hands Every Time You Use The
Bathroom? The Definitive Answer, According To Science. Retrieved from
https://www.businessinsider.com/bathroom-hand-washing-after-using-the-toilet-
2018-8
Carrico, A. R., Spoden, M., Wallston, K. A., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2013). The
Environmental Cost of Misinformation: Why the Recommendation to Use

48
Elevated Temperatures for Handwashing is Problematic. International journal of

consumer studies, 37(4), 433–441. Retrieved
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12012
CDC (2015). When And How To Wash Your Hands. Retrieved August 19, 2016 from
http://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/when-how-handwashing.html
CDC. (2020). Show Me the Science - How to Wash Your Hands. Show Me the Science -
How to Wash Your Hands. (2020, September 25). Retrieved
https://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/show-me-the- science-handwashing.html
Cevizci, S., Uludag A., Topaloglu, N., Babaoglu, U., Celik, M., & Bakar, C. (2014).
Developing Students’ Hand Hygiene Behaviors In A Primary School from
Turkey: A School-Based Health Education Stud. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/39bf/7adaa5a716d5eb7b168eb3450909956aa6c4.
pdf
Cruz J., Cruz C., & Al-Otaibi ASD (2015). Gender Differences In Hand Hygiene Among
Saudi Nursing Students. Retrieved from
https://www.ijic.info/article/view/14123
Curtis V. & Cairncross S. (2003) Effect of Washing Hands with Soap on Diarrhea Risk in
the Community: A Systematic Review. Lancet Infectious Diseases. 3(5):275–81.
Retrieved https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12726975/
DOH. (2020). COVID-19 cases in PH top 420,000 with 1,799 more infected.
Retrieved from https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/11/23/PH-coronavirus-
cases-420k.html
Dubik, Stephen & Addo, Henry & Ojo, Luke & Amegah, Kingsley & Loveland, Fiagbe
& Bechala, Banewel & Benjamin, Begyele. (2018). Hand washing knowledge
and practices among public primary schools in the Kintampo Municipality of Ghana.
International Journal Of Community Medicine And Public Health. 5. 2205.
10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20182146. Retrieved
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325304255_Hand_washing_knowledge
and_practices_among_public_primary_schools_in_the_Kintampo_Municipality
of_Ghana
Early, E., Battle, K., Cantwell, E., English, J., Lavin, J. E., & Larson, E. (1998). Effect of
several interventions on the frequency of handwashing among elementary public
school children. American Journal of Infection Control, 26(3), 263-269.
doi:10.1016/s0196- 6553(98)80011-4 Retrieved
Ejemot RI, Ehiri JE, Meremikwu MM, & Critchley JA. (2008). Hand washing for
preventing diarrhoea.external icon Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2008;1:CD004265. Retrieved https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18254044/
Fodai, A., Grant, I., & Dean, M. (2016). Efficacy of Instant Hand Sanitizers against
Foodborne Pathogens Compared with Hand Washing with Soap and Water in
Food Preparation Settings: A Systematic Review June 2016. Journal of food
protection 79(6):1040-1054 DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-15-492 PMID:
27296611. Retrieved https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27296611/

49
Guinan, M, McGuckin, M, & Ali, Y. (2002). The effect of a comprehensive handwashing

program on absenteeism in elementary schools. Retrieved
https://www.healthyworkplaceproject.com.cn/media/134774/
Hoque B.A., Mahalanabis D., Pelto B, & Alam M.J. (1995). Research methodology for
developing efficient handwashing options: an example from Bangladesh. The
Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 1995 Dec;98(6):469-475. Retrieved
Huang, C., Ma, W., & Stack, S. (2012). The Hygienic Efficacy Of Different Hand-Drying
Methods: A Review Of The Evidence. 87(8), 791–798. Retrieved
https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(12)00393-X/fulltext
Jemal S.(2018) Knowledge and Practices of Hand Washing among Health Professionals
in Dubti Referral Hospital, Dubti, Afar, Northeast Ethiopia. Retrieved
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5290797
Katz, J. D. (2004 ). Handwashing and hand disinfection: more than your mother taught
you. Anesthesiology Clinics of North America, 22, 457–471. Retrieved from doi:
10.1016/j.atc.2004.04.002
Kinnison, A., Cottrell, R., & King, A. (2004). Proper Hand-Washing Techniques in
Public Restrooms: Differences in Gender, Race, Signage, and Time of Day.
Retrieved https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ792781.pdf
Lena, P. (2018). DepEd, UNICEF Promoting Hygiene Thru WASH in Schools
Initiatives. Retrieved from https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1053772
Li, Yunxia & Liu, Yaohong & Zeng, Li & Chen, Chong & Mo, Dan & Yuan, Sue.
(2019). Knowledge And Practice Of Hand Hygiene Among Hospitalised
Patients In A Tertiary General Hospital In China And Their Attitudes: A
Cross-Sectional Survey . BMJ Open. 9. e027736. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027736.
Retrieved https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333722901_
Luby SP, Agboatwalla M, Feikin DR, Painter J, Billhimer W, Altaf A, & Hoekstra RM.
(2005) Effect of handwashing on child health: a randomised controlled trial.
366(9481):225-33. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66912-7. PMID: 16023513.
Manandhar, P., & Chandyo, R.K. (2018). Hand washing knowledge and practice among
school going children in Duwakot, Bhaktapur: A cross sectional study.
Journal of Kathmandu Medical College 6(3):110 DOI:
10.3126/jkmc.v6i3.19827 Retrieved
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325055245_
Mariwah, S., Hampshire, K., & Kasim, A. (2012). The Impact Of Gender And Physical
Environment On The Handwashing Behaviour Of University Students In Ghana.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2011.02950.x
Melese, B., Paulos, W., Astawesegn, F.H. et al. (2019). Prevalence of diarrheal diseases
and associated factors among under-five children in Dale District,
Sidama zone, Southern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 19, 1235
(2019). Retrieved https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7579-2
Mentziou I, Delezos C, Krikidis D, Nestoridou A, & Boskou G. (2020). Evaluation of
Hand Hygiene in Groups of Students in Greece. Retrieved from

50
https://www.hsj.gr/medicine/evaluation-of-hand-hygiene-in-groups-of-students-
in-greece.php?aid=3797
Michaels, B., Gangar, V., Schultz, A., Arenas, M., Curiale, M., Ayers, T., & Paulson, D.
(2002) Water temperature as a factor in handwashing efficacy. Retrieved
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1471-5740.2002.00043.x
Nair, S.S., Hanumantappa, R., Hiremath, S.G., Siraj, M.A., & Raghunath, P. (2014).
Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Hand Hygiene among Medical and Nursing
Students at a Tertiary Health Care Centre in Raichur, India. International
Scholarly Research Notices, vol. 2014, Article ID 608927, 4 pages, 2014.
Retrieved https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2014/608927/
Nazliansyah, N., Wichaikull, S., & Wetasin, K. (2016). Factors Affecting Hand Washing
Practice Among Elementary Schools Students In Indonesia. Belitung Nursing
Journal. 2. 10.33546/bnj.24.
Nuwagaba, J., Ashok, D., Balizzakiwa, T., Kisengula, I., Nagaddya, E., Rutayisire, M.
(2020). The Era Of Coronavirus; Knowledge, Attitude, Practices, And
Barriers To Hand Hygiene Among Makerere University Students And Katanga
Community Residents. Retrieved
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.05.20123042v1.full.pdf
Oswalt, A. (n.d). Early Childhood Cognitive Development: Information Processing.
Retrieved from https://www.gracepointwellness.org/462-child-
development - parenting-early-3-7/article/12760-early-childhood-cognitive-development-
information-processing
Pérez-Garza, J., García, S., & Heredia, N. (2017). Removal of Escherichia coli and
Enterococcus faecalis after Hand Washing with Antimicrobial and
Nonantimicrobial Soap and Persistence of These Bacteria in Rinsates. Journal of
food protection, 80(10), 1670–1675. Retrieved
Phillips, R. M., Vujcic, J., Boscoe, A., Handzel, T., Aninyasi, M., Cookson, S. T.,
Blanton, C., S Blum, L., & Ram, P. K. (2015). Soap is not enough: handwashing
practices and knowledge in refugee camps, Maban County, South Sudan.
Conflict and health, 9, 39. Retrieved https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-015-0065-2
Prater, K.J., Fortuna, C.A., McGill, J.L., Brandeberry, M.S., Stone, A.R., & Lu, X.
(2016). Poor Hand Hygiene By College Students Linked To More Occurrences Of
Infectious Diseases, Medical Visits, and Absence From Classes. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2015.08.012.
Quintero, C., Freeman, P. & Neumark, Y. (2009): Hand Washing Among School
Children in Bogotá, Colombia. American Journal of Public Health 99, 94_101,
Retrieved https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.129759
Rabbi, S.E., & Dey, N.C. (2013). Exploring the gap between hand washing knowledge
and practices in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional comparative study. BMC Public
Health 13, 89. Retrieved https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-89
Suen, L., So, Z., Yeung, S., Lo, K., & Lam, S. C. (2019). Epidemiological investigation
on hand hygiene knowledge and behaviour: a cross-sectional study on
gender disparity. BMC public health, 19(1), 401. Retrieved
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6705-5

51
Tambekar, D. H., S. D. Shirsat and S. B. Suradkar (2007). Prevention of transmission of

infectious disease: Studies on hand hygiene in health-care. 3 rd Convention of
BRSI and International Conference of Exploring Horizons in Biotechnology: A
Global Venture, 293.
Tamilarasi, R., Arunmozhi, R, Raja, V., &.Rajajeyakumar, M. (2016). A Study to Assess
the Knowledge and Practice of Hand Washing among School Going
Adolescents in Chennai. International Journal of Health Sciences & Research.
Vol. 6; Issue:8 Retrieved
https://www.ijhsr.org/IJHSR_Vol.6_Issue.8_Aug2016/25.pdf
Taylor, James & Basco, Roselyne & Zaied, Aya & Ward, Chelsea. (2010). Hand Hygiene
Knowledge of College Students. 23. 89-93. 10.29074/ascls.23.2.89. Retrieved
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44627528_Hand_Hygiene_Knowledge_
of_College_Students
Teumta, G.M, Niba, L.L., Ncheuveu, N.T., Ghumbemsitia, M.T., Itor, P.O., Chongwain,
P., & Navti, L.K. (2019) An Institution-Based Assessment of Students’ Hand
Washing Behavior, BioMed Research International, vol. 2019, Article ID
7178645, 7 pages, 2019. Retrieved https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7178645
Tidwell, J., Chipungu, J., Chilengi, R., Curtis, V., & Aunger, R. (2018). Theory-driven
formative research on on-site, shared sanitation quality improvement among
landlords and tenants in peri-urban Lusaka, Zambia. Retrieved from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09603123.2018.1543798
UNICEF (2010). Everything You Need to Know about Washing Your Hands to Protect
against Coronavirus (COVID-19). Retrieved from
www.unicef.org/coronavirus/everything-you-need-know-about-washing-your-
hands-protect-against-coronavirus-covid-19
White, C. G., Shinder, F. S., Shinder, A. L., & Dyer, D. L. (2001). Reduction of illness
absenteeism in elementary schools using an alcohol-free instant hand sanitizer.
Journal of School Nursing, 17, 258-65. doi:10.1177/10598405010170050401
WHO (2009). Religious and cultural aspects of hand hygiene. Retrieved
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK143998/
Xuan, L.T., and Hoat, L.N. (2012). Handwashing Among Schoolchildren in an
Ethnically Diverse Population In Northern Rural Vietna. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v6i0.188699
Yamamoto, Y., Ugai, K., & Takahashi, Y. (2005). Efficiency of Hand Drying for
Removing Bacteria From Washed Hands Comparison of Paper Towel
Drying With Warm Air Drying. Infection Control & Hospital
Epidemiology, 26(3), 316- 320. doi:10.1086/502546 Retrieved

52

Ancheta Et Al Handwashing - Chap4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ancheta Et Al Handwashing - Chap4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saint Mary’s University

Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

Non-Allied Health Students’ Knowledge and Practices on Handwashing and their

Saint Mary’s University

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

and communicable diseases is increasing. According to the report of DOH as of

an infection prevention measure, hand washing must be reiterated to the public.

Saint Mary’s University

protecting individual’s health. According to Berman, Snyder & Frandsen, (2016),

“knowledge of ways to reduce or eliminate microorganisms reduces the likelihood of

Adequate knowledge and practice of hand washing was described as hand

elbow; And (5) dry the hands using a clean towel or by air dry.

Saint Mary’s University

Saint Mary’s University

be healthy to go to school, we should implement WASH. It is really proven that

handwashing is a key to healthy body. As what Ledesma (2018) cited, it is through

As mentioned above, hand hygiene is like a “do-it-yourslef” vaccine.

Statement of the problem

Students (NAHS) of Saint Mary’s University (SMU) regarding handwashing.

1. What are the profile characteristics of the students in terms of:

2.1 Length of nails

2.2 Removal of jewelries before performing

2.3 Checking the hands for breaks in the skin

2.4 Times of hand washing

2.5 Ideal time for hand washing

Saint Mary’s University

3.1 Wetting the hands under clean running water

3.2 Use of water and soap

3.3 Position of hands and elbows

3.4 Motion for scrubbing the hands

3.5 Drying the hands

3.6 Turning off the faucet

4. Is there a significant difference of the students’ knowledge and practices on hand

washing when grouped in terms of the profile characteristics?

Statement of Null Hypothesis

There is no significant difference between the students’ knowledge and practices

on hand washing when grouped in terms of their profile characteristics.

Saint Mary’s University

The independent variables include the profile characteristics of NAHS (gender

practice on handwashing. The expected outcome of these two variables is to determine if

Saint Mary’s University

Independent Dependent Expected

Saint Mary’s University

Significance of the Study

The result of this study will be beneficial to the following:

will also be reminded on the proper steps of hand washing.

School administrators. This study will help in the advancement of school

friendly school for every student, teachers and school staffs.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

different schools of School of Accountancy and Business (SAB), School of Engineering,

Architecture, and Information Technology (SEAIT), and School of Teacher, Education

Saint Mary’s University

remove dirt and germs.

Knowledge refers to information, understanding or a skill that a person gets from

experience or education. In this study, knowledge is the information of the non-allied

health students (NAHS) about hand washing.

SEAIT, STEH are the respondents.

In this study, practice is the application of hand washing technique.

Saint Mary’s University

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Hand washing is proven the most effective in prevention of diseases. However,

occurrence of infectious diseases in different types of communities (Aiello, Coulborn,