Effect of hand washing and personal hygiene on hand food mouth disease: A community intervention study

There are no specific treatment drugs and vaccine for Hand Foot and Mouth Disease (HFMD). Taking effective preventive measures is particularly important for control of HFMD infection. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of intervention of intensive education on hand hygiene on HFMD...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medicine (Baltimore) 2018-12, Vol.97 (51), p.e13144-e13144
Hauptverfasser: Guo, Nana, Ma, Huilai, Deng, Jian, Ma, Yanxia, Huang, Liang, Guo, Ruiling, Zhang, Lijie
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:There are no specific treatment drugs and vaccine for Hand Foot and Mouth Disease (HFMD). Taking effective preventive measures is particularly important for control of HFMD infection. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of intervention of intensive education on hand hygiene on HFMD.We randomized 64 villages into intervention and control groups in Handan, Hebei province, China. Parents and caregivers of children 6 to 40 months age group in intervention villages received intensive education on hand hygiene. Control group received general education. The intervention period was from April 1 to July 31, 2011 and April 1 to July 31, 2012. We measured and compare the knowledge and incidences of HFMD between 2 groups.We collected 6484 questionnaires, including 3583 in the intervention group [response rate: 96% (3583/3726)] and 2901 in the control group [response rate: 90% (2901/3224)]. We observed that hand washing habit of children and parent, knowledge of HFMD of parents, children's daily cleaning habits scores improved in the intervention group and higher than that in the control group at both the end of year 1 (April 1-July 31, 2011)and year 2 (April 1-July 31, 2012). The incidence of HFMD (2.1%) in intervention group was significantly lower than that in control group (4.2%) at year 2 (χ = 22.138, P 
ISSN:0025-7974
1536-5964
DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000013144