戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 ent including masks, goggles, and gloves and handwashing.
2 sinfection significantly more effective than handwashing.
3 had no access to water or soap/detergent for handwashing.
4  products for general cleaning, laundry, and handwashing.
5 gies are urgently needed, and disparities in handwashing access should be incorporated into COVID-19
6                      For populations without handwashing access, immediate improvements in access or
7  any STH (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.98), as was handwashing after defecation (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24-0.90)
8  reptile carriage of salmonella necessitates handwashing after handling of animals.
9                                       Strict handwashing also significantly reduced the infection rat
10 beyond contact and droplet measures (such as handwashing and cleaning surfaces) and attend to masking
11                                              Handwashing and mask wearing were reported frequently bo
12                                              Handwashing and recent malaria treatment reduced odds of
13 OVID-19 prevention training, 100.0% reported handwashing, and 80.0% reported use of face coverings at
14 treach about social distancing, masking, and handwashing, and a COVID-19 testing plan consisted of tw
15 dated to wear face masks, engage in frequent handwashing, and maintain physical distancing.
16         Improving water quality, sanitation, handwashing, and nutrition could be more sustainable con
17 stained benefits of early water, sanitation, handwashing, and nutrition interventions on child cognit
18 ed the effects of water quality, sanitation, handwashing, and nutrition interventions on micronutrien
19 y, we demonstrated that a water, sanitation, handwashing, and nutritional intervention improved linea
20 nds, pet keeping, failure to use soap during handwashing, and overflowing waste collection facilities
21 d to investigate the effect of mask wearing, handwashing, and physical distancing measures on inciden
22                Among those with a designated handwashing area near the home, soap or ash were more fr
23 m, 1,160 in the sanitation arm, 1,141 in the handwashing arm, 1,064 in the WSH arm, 1,072 in the nutr
24  such as self-reported dietary diversity and handwashing, as well as infant survival were improved.
25 aviour, rather than knowledge, could improve handwashing behaviour in rural India.
26 t maximised handwashing intention, monitored handwashing behaviour, provided tailored feedback, reinf
27 ne questionnaire on handwashing would affect handwashing behaviour.
28                                              Handwashing, both before eating (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26-0.
29 ed households weekly for 1 year to encourage handwashing by residents in soap households and to recor
30  and (2) if hand-to-mouth contacts following handwashing caused an infection risk greater than an acc
31  two scenarios that should not occur: (1) if handwashing caused fecal contamination, indicated using
32 gic nursery design and staffing; emphasis on handwashing compliance; minimizing central venous cathet
33 n of improved water quality, sanitation, and handwashing could contribute to sustainable control stra
34 e internet intervention designed to increase handwashing could have an important effect in reduction
35                                     Frequent handwashing decreased the likelihood of novel strain int
36  has driven calls for increased frequency of handwashing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
37 In contrast, comparing with no hand washing, handwashing every 2 hours can reduce the infection risk
38 erved for gloves, gowns, eye protection, and handwashing; evidence suggested a dose-response relation
39 ollowed prevention protocols: bubble groups, handwashing, face masks, and conducting activities mostl
40 oal (SDG) Indicator 6.2.1 requires household handwashing facilities to have soap and water, but there
41 d by high population densities and access to handwashing facilities with soap and water is limited.
42 urce, and 45.2% (25.6-72.0) for no access to handwashing facility, and by 44.9% (37.3-53.5) for child
43 sion of any particular strain of MRSA nor in handwashing frequency between management phases.
44 fection control measures (patient isolation, handwashing, glove use, and appropriate gown use) and im
45 an Africa and Oceania were without access to handwashing in 2019, and in eight countries, 50 million
46 and glove isolation was compared with strict handwashing in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) pati
47 to the gym but weeks to develop the habit of handwashing in the hospital.
48 leading cause of child death, improvement in handwashing in the household reduced the incidence of di
49 washing with soap and water to inform use of handwashing in the prevention of COVID-19 transmission.
50 omated web-based intervention that maximised handwashing intention, monitored handwashing behaviour,
51 g with soap reduced any ARI compared with no handwashing intervention (RR 0.83 [95% CI 0.76-0.90], I(
52                          A social norm-based handwashing intervention combined with disgust-inducing
53     We aimed to evaluate the effect of three handwashing interventions on handwashing with soap (HWWS
54 ials have further underscored the benefit of handwashing interventions.
55                                              Handwashing is a key component of guidance to reduce tra
56                         However, the role of handwashing is debated, and no good randomised evidence
57 atory infections, but prevalence of adequate handwashing is low.
58                                     Adequate handwashing, isolation of carriers, and barrier techniqu
59 al protective and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are a
60                        Interventions such as handwashing, masks, social distancing, and "social bubbl
61 , but were equally clean, and more often had handwashing materials.
62 ciated health and prevention issues, such as handwashing (mode 1, CVW = 0.14; rank 9), conserving foo
63 e combined nutrition, water, sanitation, and handwashing (N + WSH) intervention group (receiving nutr
64 into individual water treatment, sanitation, handwashing, nutrition, combined WSH, combined nutrition
65 ient power to assess the impact of household handwashing on diarrhea in infants.
66 each patient was randomized to either strict handwashing or protective gown and glove isolation inter
67 owder (MNP), counseling on child feeding and handwashing, or regular government health communication
68 ver 12 million observations) and 2) hospital handwashing (over 40 million observations).
69    Controls more commonly performed frequent handwashing (P = .001), were aware of telemedicine (P =
70 n (PR: 0.89 [95% CI 0.73, 1.08], p = 0.228), handwashing (PR: 0.89 [95% CI 0.73, 1.09], p = 0.277), o
71 , child morbidity, and caregiver feeding and handwashing practices were assessed at enrollment and at
72 sting (WLZ < -2), morbidity, and feeding and handwashing practices were estimated using difference-in
73                               Glove use with handwashing prior to and after contact with potential co
74 rhoea through home-based water treatment and handwashing promotion achieved high adherence by visitin
75   Infants living in households that received handwashing promotion and plain soap had 39% fewer days
76 n 5 years living in households that received handwashing promotion and plain soap had 42% fewer days
77  15 years living in households that received handwashing promotion and plain soap had a 53% lower inc
78 s in households that received plain soap and handwashing promotion had a 50% lower incidence of pneum
79 sed controlled trial to assess the effect of handwashing promotion with soap on the incidence of acut
80                       In neighbourhoods with handwashing promotion, 300 households each were assigned
81 n, we randomly assigned 25 neighbourhoods to handwashing promotion; 11 neighbourhoods (306 households
82 ve protective isolation protocol or a strict handwashing protocol.
83 the perceived descriptive norm and perceived handwashing publicness.
84 ion in incidence of covid-19 associated with handwashing (relative risk 0.47, 95% confidence interval
85 eventions, such as the use of face masks and handwashing, restricting international travel, suspendin
86 esh found that individual or combined water, handwashing, sanitation, and nutrition interventions dur
87 ere quantified at different locations within handwashing sinks and compared in quantity and distribut
88                                              Handwashing sinks and their associated premise plumbing
89 his study supports previous work citing that handwashing sinks are reservoirs for pathogens and ARO a
90 c resistant organisms (ARO) within and among handwashing sinks in healthcare settings, using culture-
91 d Risk Factors Study to estimate access to a handwashing station with available soap and water for 1,
92 improved water source, improved latrine, and handwashing station); and (3) a fully adjusted model adj
93 ed risk ratio 1.89, 95% CI 1.16-3.08) in the handwashing station-only group, and 24% (143 of 588 occa
94 nds for the TNSB group, 25 compounds for the handwashing station-only group, and 25 compounds for the
95                             The provision of handwashing stations alone had little effect.
96 including provision of handwashing stations; handwashing stations only; and no intervention.
97 ing), WASH (ventilated improved pit latrine, handwashing stations, chlorine, liquid soap, and play ya
98 lated improved pit latrine, provision of two handwashing stations, liquid soap, chlorine, and play sp
99 disgust-inducing messages, with provision of handwashing stations, was effective at increasing HWWS a
100  (TNSB) intervention, including provision of handwashing stations; handwashing stations only; and no
101 reatment (30% vs 44%, P < .0001) and correct handwashing technique (25% vs 51%, P < .0001) in interve
102 ucts and juices, and about the importance of handwashing to prevent the spread of diarrhoeal illness,
103                                              Handwashing to prevent transmission of respiratory tract
104  reviews have indicated the effectiveness of handwashing to reduce transmission of respiratory viruse
105 interventions besides surfaces, particularly handwashing, to continue developing recommendations for
106                Unsafe water, sanitation, and handwashing, unsafe sex, and malnutrition were the leadi
107 three basic principles of infection control: handwashing, vaccination of health care workers, and pro
108 three basic principles of infection control: handwashing, vaccination of health care workers, and pro
109 ning and gloving was 82% and compliance with handwashing was 76% (compared with 22% before study [p <
110                    Increased compliance with handwashing was associated with a reduction in nosocomia
111 ve shown that water quality, sanitation, and handwashing (WASH) in a household are strongly associate
112             Household Water, Sanitation, and Handwashing (WASH) interventions constitute one potentia
113 nual probability of infection to be <1:1000, handwashing water must contain <2 x 10(-6) focus-forming
114 p and water, but there are no guidelines for handwashing water quality.
115 d mechanism of infection due to contaminated handwashing water to inform risk-based guidelines for mi
116 sk-based guidelines for microbial quality of handwashing water.
117 rtain non-pharmaceutical behaviours (such as handwashing) were deterrents to vaccination.
118  certain personal protective behaviours (eg, handwashing) were more commonly adopted than social dist
119 ) of the global population, lacked access to handwashing with available soap and water.
120                                              Handwashing with chlorine-containing towels was increasi
121                                              Handwashing with daily bathing also prevents impetigo.
122                      Our model suggests that handwashing with nonpotable water will generally reduce
123 drinking water (W); improved sanitation (S); handwashing with soap (H); combined WSH; nutrition couns
124 effect of three handwashing interventions on handwashing with soap (HWWS) after toilet use.
125  were exclusive breastfeeding (self-report), handwashing with soap (observation), oral rehydration sa
126 Weekly visits in 25 neighborhoods to promote handwashing with soap after defecation and before prepar
127 r objective was to estimate global access to handwashing with soap and water to inform use of handwas
128   In this evaluation of hand hygiene agents, handwashing with soap and water, 2% chlorhexidine glucon
129 giene (eg, with hand sanitizer); and a final handwashing with soap and water.
130    The primary outcome was the proportion of handwashing with soap at key events (after defecation, a
131                       At 6 weeks' follow-up, handwashing with soap at key events was more common in t
132                                              Handwashing with soap at key events was rare at baseline
133 is study shows that substantial increases in handwashing with soap can be achieved using a scalable i
134                      Interventions promoting handwashing with soap can reduce ARI in LMICs, and could
135                                              Handwashing with soap could substantially reduce diarrho
136 lth, and Global Index Medicus for studies of handwashing with soap interventions in LMICs from incept
137 timate the effect of interventions promoting handwashing with soap on ARI in LMICs.
138                                              Handwashing with soap prevents the two clinical syndrome
139                      Interventions promoting handwashing with soap reduced any ARI compared with no h
140                                 Promotion of handwashing with soap reduced diarrhoea risk by 30% (0.7
141 d the shortened intervention, the proportion handwashing with soap was 29% (SD 9) in the intervention
142  the 6-month follow-up visit, the proportion handwashing with soap was 37% (SD 7) in the intervention
143 ns promoting hand hygiene methods other than handwashing with soap were excluded, as were interventio
144 ted drinking water, upgraded sanitation, and handwashing with soap).
145 measures, including exclusive breastfeeding, handwashing with soap, correct use of oral rehydration s
146 nge communication to promote stool disposal, handwashing with soap, water treatment, protected explor
147  mean removal rate was 94.6% (SD = 6.5%) for handwashing with soap-and-water (n = 28) and 8.7% (SD =
148                            We concluded that handwashing with soap-and-water removes 80% more DEHP th
149 i-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) on hands by handwashing with soap-and-water versus water-only.
150 th soap-and-water removes 80% more DEHP than handwashing with water alone, and may be a cost-effectiv
151 assess whether the baseline questionnaire on handwashing would affect handwashing behaviour.
152 an internet-delivered intervention to modify handwashing would reduce the number of RTIs among adults
153 ed the impact of low-cost water, sanitation, handwashing (WSH) and child nutrition interventions on e
154      We assess effects of water, sanitation, handwashing (WSH) and nutrition interventions on caregiv
155              Combined water, sanitation, and handwashing (WSH) interventions could reduce fecal conta
156    We hypothesized that a water, sanitation, handwashing (WSH), and nutritional intervention would sl
157 ypothesized that drinking water, sanitation, handwashing (WSH), and nutritional interventions would i
158 es included 4 groups: water, sanitation, and handwashing (WSH); nutrition (N), including lipid-based

 
Page Top