Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Current knowledge, attitude and behaviour of hand and food hygiene in a developed residential community of Singapore: a cross-sectional survey

  • Junxiong Pang1Email author,
  • Shao Wei Jonathan Lumen Chua1 and
  • Liyang Hsu1, 2
Contributed equally
BMC Public Health201515:577

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1910-3

Received: 28 April 2014

Accepted: 4 June 2015

Published: 21 June 2015

Abstract

Background

Diarrhoea incidence has been increasing progressively over the past years in developed countries, including Singapore, despite the accessibility and availability to clean water, well-established sanitation infrastructures and regular hygiene promotion. The aim of this study is to determine the current knowledge, attitude and behaviour of hand and food hygiene, and the potential risk factors of diarrhoea in a residential community of Singapore.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted within a residential area in the west of Singapore from June to August 2013. A total of 1,156 household units were randomly sampled and invited to participate in an interviewer-assisted survey using standardised questionnaires. Descriptive, univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using descriptive statistics, Fisher’s Exact test and multivariate logistic regression modelling, respectively. R program was used for all statistical analysis. All tests were conducted at 5 % level of significance with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) reported where applicable.

Results

A total of 240 units (20.8 %) consented and responded to the survey invitation. About 77 % of the expected knowledge and attitude were observed in at least 80 % of the participants, compared to only about 31 % of the expected behaviours and practises. Being single [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.29; 95 % CI = 1.16-4.48], having flu in the past six month (AOR = 3.24; 95 % CI = 1.74-6.06), preferred self-medication (AOR = 2.07; 95 % CI = 1.06–4.12) were risk factors of diarrhoea. Washing hands with water before attending to children or sick persons (AOR = 0.30; 95 % CI = 0.11–0.82), washing hands with water (AOR = 0.16; 95 % CI = 0.05–0.45) and water with soap (AOR = 0.29; 95 % CI = 0.12–0.72) after attending to children or sick persons, and hand washing between 30 s to a minute (AOR = 0.44; 95 % CI = 0.20-0.90) were protective factors against diarrhoea.

Conclusions

Good knowledge and attitude of the participants did not positively translate into high compliance and motivation to perform good hygiene practices. This observation may have resulted in a significant extent on the increasing diarrhoea incidences. Current interventions may be improved with more active community partnership among the residents, schools and the relevant social organizations, to raise awareness on the importance of compliance to good hygiene practices, and the risk factors of diarrhoea. A large case–control study would be required to validate these findings in future.

Keywords

Knowledge Practices Attitudes Hand hygiene Food hygiene Noncompliant and complacent behaviour Diarrhoea

Background

Diarrhoea is one of leading causes of morbidity and mortality across all age groups and regions of the world, particularly in the less developed communities and children below the age of five. Globally, diarrhoea episodes in children under the age of five, are estimated at about 1.7 billion of which 36 million were severe cases [1, 2]. Among which there were an estimated 700 000 deaths annually, which is lower than in 2005 where estimates range between 1.6 million and 2.6 million [1, 3, 4]. Furthermore, diarrhoea poses a substantial burden accounting for approximately 2.8 billion diarrhoea episodes among older children, adolescents, and adults [2], even in the developed communities [57]. Infection can be spread through contaminated food, drinking water as well as from person-to-person contact due to poor hygiene [1]. However, the main cause of diarrhoea in a developed community is usually due to either foodborne or person to person transmission [812]. Diarrhoea can be significantly reduced through improvements in drinking water, sanitation facilities, hygiene knowledge and practices [11, 13, 14]. In addition, well-structured campaigns to improve hygiene knowledge and practices have been shown to be effective in the prevention of diarrhoea disease transmission in clinical settings [15] as well as in the less developed communities [16, 17].

Even though there were much accessibility and availability of well-established infrastructures such as proper sanitation and clean water facilities with soap, and the regular health campaigns/promotions on good hygiene practises in the developed residential communities, there has been gradual increase of acute diarrhoea illnesses and food poisoning notifications over the past years, resulting in significant public health burden [512, 18]. As an example, there were a total of 124,292 acute diarrhoea illnesses reported in the Singapore community in 2011, which is an increase of 10.3 % compared to 2010 [19]. Children under the age of five are most affected, which accounted for 47.4 % and 28.1 % of cases infected by C. enteritis and S. enteritidis, respectively in 2011 [19]. As such, it is critical to understand the current knowledge, attitude and behaviour of good hygiene and its impact on the increased diarrhoea illness in a residential community of a developed country. In addition, most of the current understanding of the knowledge, attitude and behaviour on hygiene was significantly focused on less developed communities [2024], and very limited in the well-developed communities [11, 25]. Therefore, we aim to determine the current knowledge, attitude and behaviour of good hygiene as well as risk factors of diarrhoea disease in a developed community in Singapore, where clean water and soap are easily available and affordable. The study findings will also help to better inform and guide surveillance and prevention policies and strategies to reduce the public burden of diarrhoea diseases.

Methods

Study area and design

An interviewer-assisted cross-sectional survey was conducted in a developed typical residential heartland located in the west of Singapore, from early-June 2013 to early-August 2013. The short duration of this cross-sectional study is to minimise any bias that might have been introduced over a longer duration of the study. For example, the longer the interviewers were present around the neighbourhood, the more likely it may arouse interest among the residents on this study that may indirectly influence their choices during the surveys. In addition, the short duration is an optimal strategy to avoid any form of public campaign or events that may be held which the study team may not be aware of and may indirectly influence the results of this study. This area is one of the furthest residential areas situated away from the central business district (about 18 km) that can truly represent a residential heartland environment in Singapore [11, 18]. In total, the three largest zones (Zone A, B, C), which cover about 6000 residential units, were been selected for the survey. Four Housing Development Board (HDB) blocks from each zone were selected by simple random sampling technique using lottery method from the list of HDB blocks found in each zone. All the units in these blocks were invited to participate in the survey from door-to-door. The questionnaire was designed to tackle the behaviour of the participants first before we questioned them on their knowledge and attitude towards handwashing. This is to ensure that the participants’ responses on their hygienic behaviour would not be biased by the questions on knowledge and attitude.

Participants and data collection

Participants were selected based on the hierarchy order of the household depending on who is present at the time of the interview. The selection order was from master or mistress of the household, to grandparents or relatives who stay with the family, and children who are above 18 years of age. This strategy also aims to have respondents who had the greatest awareness on the day-to-day household hygiene practices at the time of survey to answer some of the relevant questions in the survey. The surveys were collected over the weekends during daylight hours to increase the chance of engaging the participants invited. Each interview lasted about 25 min on average. Participants were reported having diarrhoea and flu if the participant had at least one episode in the past six months. Diarrhoea is defined by the World Health Organisation of passage of loose or watery stools at least three times in a 24 h period. Flu is defined as having fever, runny nose and sore throat. National data from the HDB [26] and Ministry of Health, Singapore [27] were used as a guiding reference to show if the current subpopulation is a good representative of the general population of Singapore (Table 1).
Table 1

Demographics of study population

Demographics

Overall (%) [N = 240]

National HDB data [26] (%)

Median Age

41.5

39

Interquartile Range

32-52

 

Gender

  

Female

122 (50.8)

(51.2)

Marital Status

  

Married

184 (76.7)

(76.5)

Ethnicity

  

Chinese

159 (66.3)

(73.5)

Malay

30 (12.5)

(15.6)

Indian

32 (13.3)

(8.9)

Others

19 (7.9)

(2)

Citizenship

  

Singaporean

182 (75.8)

(82)

Education Ɨ

  

Post-Secondary

120 (50)

(51.4)

Occupation

  

Employed

158 (65.8)

(64)

Household members

  

<3

37 (15.4)

(28.8)

3-5

145 (60.4)

(63.8)

>5

58 (24.2)

(18.4)

At least 1 Child <5 Years Old

55 (22.9)

(5.1)

Residence

  

2-3 Room

29 (12.1)

(23.7)

4 Room

133 (55.4)

(41.1)

5 Room-Executive

78 (32.5)

(35.2)

Diabetes

11 (4.6)

(11.3)+

Hypertension

34 (14.2)

(23.5)+

Asthma

4 (1.67)

-

Allergy

9 (3.8)

-

Smoker

48 (20)

(14.3)+

Diarrhoea* #

60 (25)

-

Flu*^

73 (30.4)

-

ƗPost-Secondary refers to individuals with qualification higher than GCE ‘O’ level certification (i.e. GCE ‘A’ level, diploma, degree)

*Participants who self-reported having at least one episode of diarrhoea or flu, respectively, in the past six months

#Diarrhoea as defined by the World Health Organisation of passage of loose or watery stools at least three times in a 24 h period

^Flu is defined as having fever, runny nose and sore throat

+Based on year 2010, Ministry of Health, Singapore [27]

Data management and analysis

To ensure quality of data, standardized checklist and structured questionnaires was used. Pre-test was done on 25 participants out of the study area and necessary correction was done accordingly. Intensive training was given to six interviewers and supervisor for one day on how to approach study participants, and on how to use the questionnaire. Supervision was done by a supervisor on a regular routine. The collected data was checked for completeness, accuracy and clarity by the supervisor. Appropriate measure was taken on time for completeness before data entry. Data clean up and cross-checking was done before analysis by an independent member who was not involved in data entry. Each completed questionnaire was checked visually for completeness before coded for data entry. A scoring system was utilised to combine sub-questions together for group analysis. Question 4, 5, 19, 20, 21 had multiple parts and a score was given to each answer. In question 4, the response ‘soap’ would be given a score of 2, the response ‘water’ would be given a score of 1 and the response ‘none’ would be given a score of 0. For question 19 and 20, the option with a rank 1 would be given a score of 2, a rank 2 would be given a score of 1 and a score of 0 was given to the option ranked 3. The score for each subquestion was then added up to derive the total score value for each individual and was used in further analysis. The score for Question 21 was determined by the number of ticks on the options of positive action. R version 3.0.1 (R Core Team (2013) Vienna, Austria URL: http://www.R-project.org/) was used for all statistical analysis. Fisher’s Exact Test was used to test for significance with all categorical variables, to identify possible confounders. Generalised linear models were used for multivariate logistical regression to elucidate association and calculation of crude and adjusted odds ratio values. Age, marital status and having flu over the past 6 months were statistically significant on fisher’s exact test and were used to adjust the crude odds ratio in the multivariate logistical regression model. All tests were conducted at the 5 % level of significance with P-value and corresponding 95 % confidence intervals reported where applicable.

Ethical clearance was obtained from the National University of Singapore Institutional Review Board. The purpose of study was well explained to the study participants and informed consent was obtained. Confidentiality was maintained at all levels of the study by avoiding use of name and other identifiers. Participants’ involvement in the study was on voluntary basis; participants who were unwilling to participate in the study and those who wish to quit their participation were informed to do so without any restriction.

Results

In total, 1,156 units were visited and invited to participate in the survey. There were 707 (61.2 %) units either not at home or not responsive, even on second attempt. Out of the 1,156 units, 240 units (20.8 %) consented and completed the survey, and 18 % rejected participation in the survey. The median age of the participants was 41.5 years old [Interquartile range (IQR): 32–52], 50.8 % was female, 76.7 % was married, 66.3 % was Chinese, 75.8 % was Singaporean, and 55.4 % stayed in a four room flat (Table 1). In addition, 50 % of the participants had post-secondary education (defined as higher than GCE ‘O’ level), 40 % had at least one comorbidity, and the most common comorbidity was hypertension (14.2 %; Table 1). The majority of the participants (60.4 %) had three to five residing members, and 22.9 % had at least a child below the age of five. Furthermore, 25 % of the participants self-reported having at least one diarrhoea episode in the past six month period before the survey day, and about 30 % self-reported having at least one flu episode over the same period (Table 1). The sampled population had similar demographic profiles as the national population (Table 1).

Hand hygiene knowledge, attitude and behaviour

About 92.5 % reported washing their hands four or more times in a day, while 71.2 % reported washing their hands with soap four or more times in a day (Table 2). Only 6.3 % reported washing their hands with alcohol disinfectant four or more times in a day. The median score on whether they washed their hands on the specified occasions was 21 out of the maximum score of 28 (IQR = 17–23; Table 2). Only 48.8 % washed their hands with soap before meals, and only 58.8 % washed their hands before handling food or cooking. In addition, only 55.8 % and 61.3 % washed their hands with soap before and after attending to a child or sick person, respectively (Table 2). Furthermore, there were only 86.3 % reported washing their hands with soap after defecation, and only 72.5 % washed their hands with soap after a toilet trip.
Table 2

Questionnaires and the response

Questions*

 

(N = 240)

%

Hand Hygiene - Practice and Behaviour

Q1 How often do you wash your hands a day?

   

Never

0

0.0

1-3 times

18

7.5

4-8 times

106

44.2

>8 times

116

48.3

Q2 How often do you wash your hands with soap a day?

   

Never

4

1.7

1-3 times

65

27.1

4-8 times

110

45.8

>8 times

61

25.4

Q3 How often do you wash your hands with alcohol-based disinfectant a day?

  

Never

192

80.0

1-3 times

33

13.8

4-8 times

9

3.8

>8 times

6

2.5

Q4Ɨ Do you wash your hands….

Median Score (IQR)

21

17-23

A. When your hands are visibly dirty?

Response: Soap

211

87.9

B. Before eating?

Response: Soap

117

48.8

C. Before handling food or cooking?

Response: Soap

141

58.8

D. After handling food or cooking?

Response: Soap

179

74.6

E. After defecation?

Response: Soap

207

86.3

F. After a toilet trip?

Response: Soap

174

72.5

G. After an outdoor physical activity?

Response: Soap

176

73.3

H. Before attending to a child or sick person?

Response: Soap

134

55.8

I. After attending to a child or sick person?

Response: Soap

147

61.3

J. After sneezing or coughing?

Response: Soap

103

42.9

K. After handling pets?

Response: Soap

172

71.7

L. With preference of using

Response: Liquid Soap

196

81.7

M. For about…

Response: >30s

111

46.3

Q5 Do you follow…

  

Step 1 of the 8 steps of hand washing?

211

87.9

Step 2 of the 8 steps of hand washing?

176

73.3

Step 3 of the 8 steps of hand washing?

152

63.3

Step 4 of the 8 steps of hand washing?

82

34.2

Step 5 of the 8 steps of hand washing?

74

30.8

Step 6 of the 8 steps of hand washing?

64

26.7

Step 7 of the 8 steps of hand washing?

103

42.9

Step 8 of the 8 steps of hand washing?

180

75.0

Q6 Do you feel it is troublesome washing your hands with soap?

27

11.3

Q7 Is hand washing with soap a habit for you?

207

86.3

Q8 Do you think you will encourage your family members and friends to pick up hand washing with soap, if they have not?

187

77.9

Q9 Do you think you will wash your hands with soap more often during disease outbreaks like the previous H1N1 or SARS?

189

78.8

Q10 Do you cover your mouth when you sneeze?

223

92.9

Q11 Do you wear a mask in public when you are sick?

75

31.3

Food Hygiene - Practice and Behaviour

Q12 Do you keep fresh food such as vegetables and meat separately in the refrigerator with the appropriate temperature?

232

96.7

Q13 Do you wash your food properly before cooking?

240

100.0

Q14 Do you have a chopping board that is only for vegetables, and another one just for meat?

136

56.7

Q15 Do you check the expiry date on the food packaging before purchasing or cooking the food?

226

94.2

Q16 Do you ensure the food is well-cooked before consumption?

236

98.3

Q17 Do you leave cooked food at room temperature for longer than two hours?

118

49.2

Q18 Do you reheat leftover food before consumption?

212

88.3

Q19Do you choose hawker stalls based on…

  

Their cleanliness grades awarded by NEA

47

19.6

The good recommendation of their food

98

40.8

The cleanliness of the stalls and the hygiene measures taken by their chef(s)

95

39.6

Q20 Do you choose restaurants based on…

  

Their cleanliness grades awarded by NEA

89

37.1

The good recommendation of their food

151

62.9

Q21 Will you provide feedback to the….

  

Restaurant or hawkers or food handlers if you have diarrhoea after consuming their food

83

34.6

NEA/MOH if you have diarrhoea after consuming food at a hawker or restaurant

47

19.6

None of the above

140

58.3

Q22 Would it be useful to have a web-portal or apps that you can report your diarrheal case?

152

63.3

Q23 When you have diarrhoea do you prefer to….

  

Self-medicate

89

37.1

Visit a GP

118

49.2

Visit polyclinic

7

2.9

Visit the hospital

26

10.8

Hand Hygiene - Knowledge and Attitude

Q24 Do you agree that washing your hands with soap can help to reduce the spread of diseases, like HFMD and flu?

232

96.7

Q25 Do you agree that washing your hands with soap can protect you from diarrheal diseases?

195

81.3

Q26 Do you agree that washing your hands with soap is more effective in the removal of pathogens than without soap?

231

96.3

Q27 Do you agree that washing your hands with alcohol based disinfectant is more effective than with soap?

138

57.5

Q28 Do you agree that the 8 steps for washing hands technique is effective in the removal of pathogens?

214

89.2

Q29 Do you agree that washing your hands with soap using the 8 steps for washing hands is important?

207

86.3

Q30 Do you agree that there should be more provisions for alcohol-based disinfectants on public transport systems, such as at the MRT stations or on the buses?

183

76.3

Q31 Do you agree that washing your hands keeps your hands too clean and it may lower your immunity against pathogens?

111

46.3

Q32 Do you agree that the emphasis on hand hygiene should be enforced since kindergarten?

236

98.3

Q33 Do you agree that you can reduce transmission of disease by covering your mouth when you sneeze?

234

97.5

Q34 Do you agree that wearing a mask can reduce transmission of disease when you have flu-like symptoms?

228

95.0

Q35 Do you think an annual hygiene campaign will be effective in encouraging you to have good hand hygiene practice?

206

85.8

Food Hygiene - Knowledge and Attitude

Q36 Do you agree that good food hygiene can help to reduce diarrheal incidence?

232

96.7

Q37 Do you agree that it is important to keep fresh food such as vegetable and meat separately in the refrigerator with the appropriate temperature?

234

97.5

Q38 Do you agree that proper washing of food before cooking can help to reduce the chance of diarrheal incidence?

235

97.9

Q39 Do you agree that leaving cooked food at room temperature for longer than two hours can increase the chance of diarrheal incidence?

182

75.8

Q40 Do you agree that leftover food should be reheated before serving?

224

93.3

Q41 Do you agree that checking the expiry date before purchasing or cooking the food can help to reduce the chance of diarrheal incidence?

233

97.1

Q42 Do you agree that using different chopping boards for meat and vegetables can help to reduce the chance of diarrheal incidence?

181

75.4

Q43 Do you agree that well-cooked food can help to reduce diarrheal incidence?

237

98.8

Q44 Do you agree that the emphasis of food hygiene should be enforced since kindergarten?

234

97.5

Q45 Do you think an annual hygiene campaign will be effective to encourage you to have good hygiene practices?

216

90.0

*Questions for which the response is not indicated would give the values for the positive answer

ƗEach answer to the sub questions were assigned a value (none = 0, water only = 1, water and soap = 2), the summation of the scores were used in the analysis

With regards to the eight recommended steps of handwashing [28] by the Singapore Health Promotion Board (HPB), 81.3 % agreed hand washing with soap can protect against diarrhoea, and about 89.2 % and 86.3 % agreed that the eight steps of handwashing is effective and important to remove pathogens, respectively. However, only 87.9 % of participants reported following the first step, and subsequently, there was a decreasing trend with only 73.3 %, 63.3 %, 34.2 %, 30.8 %, 26.7 %, 42.9 %, and 75.0 % reported performing the remaining steps 2 to 8, respectively (Table 2). Interestingly, only 11.3 % felt handwashing with soap is troublesome, 86.3 % reported it as a habit for them, and 77.9 % would encourage their family members and friends to pick up the good habit of handwashing with soap.

Although 96.7 % agreed that washing hands with soap can reduce the spread of diseases like HFMD and flu, and 96.3 % agreed that washing hands with soap is more effective than without soap, only 78.8 % would wash their hands with soap more often during disease outbreak (Table 2). Furthermore, even though 92.2 % reported covering their mouth when sneezing, and 97.5 % agreed that covering mouth when sneezing can reduce transmission of disease, only 42.9 % reported washing their hands with soap after sneezing or coughing. Similarly, even though 95 % agreed that wearing a mask can reduce transmission of disease, only 31.3 % would wear a mask in public when sick.

Food hygiene knowledge, attitude and behaviour

About 96.7 % and 98.3 % of the participants reported keeping fresh fruits and vegetables separately from meat in the refrigerator and ensuring the food was well-cooked before consumption, respectively (Table 2). About 94.2 % checked the expiry date of food packaging before purchasing or cooking the food, and 88.3 % would reheat leftover food before consumption. These behaviours were positively correlated to the high proportion (at least 90 %) of participants who agreed on the importance of performing these actions to reduce diarrhoea. About 49.2 % would still leave cooked food at room temperature for longer than two hours even though 75.8 % agreed that leaving cooked food at room temperature for longer than two hours will increase the chance of diarrhoea (Table 2). Similarly, only 56.7 % had separate chopping boards for vegetables and meat, even though 75.4 % agreed that having two separate chopping boards for meat and vegetables can reduce diarrhoea incidence (Table 2).

Both hawker centres and restaurants were largely chosen based on good recommendations of their food (40.8 % and 62.9 %, respectively) instead of the overall cleanliness of the stall (39.6 %) or the National Environmental Agency (NEA) grading (19.6 % for hawker centres and 37.1 % for restaurant) (Table 2). The NEA grading is a structured system of appraisal for food outlets. It was introduced to motivate licensees to improve and maintain good personal and food hygiene, and housekeeping of their premises [29]. About 58.3 % of the participants reported that they will inform neither NEA nor the restaurant/hawker stall if they experience diarrhoea. Only 19.6 % and 34.6 % would inform NEA/Ministry of Health (MOH) and the restaurant/stall respectively, if they experience diarrhoea after consuming food from the vendors (Table 2). In the event of diarrhoea episode, 37.1 % would prefer to self-medicate and about 49.2 % would prefer to visit a general practitioner (GP) in a private clinic (Table 2).

About 98 % of the participants agreed in early emphasis and training of hand and food hygiene starting from kindergarten (Table 2). More than 85 % also felt an annual hand and food hygiene campaign will be effective to encourage them to sustain good hygiene practices. Moreover, 76.3 % of the participants concurred for provisions of alcohol-based disinfectants to be made available on public transportation systems such as mass rapid trains and buses (Table 2). Furthermore, 63.3 % of the participants felt an online portal will be useful for reporting diarrhoea (Table 2).

Risk factors of diarrhoea

In order to explore the potential risk factors associated with diarrhoea in the past six-month period, odds ratios were calculated (Table 3; Additional file 1: Table S1). Based on fisher’s exact test, age, marital status and flu were found to be statistically significant. Adjusting for these variables, the adjusted odds ratios (AOR) were calculated for all variables and questions. Being single (AOR = 2.29; 95 % CI = 1.16-4.48) and having flu in the past six month period (AOR = 3.24; 95 % CI = 1.74-6.06) were risk factors of having diarrhoea in the past six months. Participants who preferred self-medication were twice more likely to experience diarrhoea (AOR = 2.07, 95 % CI = 1.06–4.12) compared to those who preferred to consult a GP. Participants who washed their hands with water before attending to children or sick persons (Q4H) were three times less likely to experience diarrhoea as compared to participants who do not washed their hands (AOR = 0.30; 95 % CI = 0.11–0.82). Furthermore, participants who washed their hands with water (AOR = 0.16, 95 % CI = 0.05–0.45) as well as water with soap (AOR = 0.29; 95 % CI = 0.12–0.72) after attending to children or sick persons (Q4I) had three times lower risk of diarrhoea incidence as compared to participants who do not washed their hands at all (Table 3).
Table 3

Significant risk factors of having diarrhoea

 

Diarrhoea#

         

Variables

None

N = 180

%

Yes

N = 60

%

p-value^

Crude

OR

p-value

95 % CI Range

Adjusted

OR+

p-value

95 % CI Range

Median Age

43

 

36

 

0.0188

0.98

0.0204

0.96

1.00

0.99

0.4421

0.97

1.01

(Interquartile Range)

(33–55)

 

(29–45.25)

          

Marital Status

             

Married

145

80.6

39

65.0

 

1.00

   

1.00

   

Single

35

19.4

21

35.0

0.0211

2.23

0.0150

1.16

4.25

2.29

0.0154

1.16

4.48

Ethnic Group

             

Chinese

117

65.0

42

70.0

 

1.00

   

1.00

   

Malay

19

10.6

11

18.3

 

1.61

0.2544

0.69

3.63

1.53

0.3276

0.64

3.58

Indian

29

16.1

3

5.0

 

0.29

0.0492

0.07

0.87

0.31

0.0727

0.07

0.98

Others

15

8.3

4

6.7

0.0711

0.74

0.6149

0.20

2.18

0.69

0.5509

0.18

2.15

Flu #

             

No

137

76.1

30

50.0

 

1.00

   

1.00

   

Yes

43

23.9

30

50.0

0.0003

3.19

0.0002

1.73

5.90

3.24

0.0002

1.74

6.06

Q4H

             

None

20

11.1

12

20.0

 

1.00

   

1.00

   

Water only

62

34.4

12

20.0

 

0.32

0.0190

0.12

0.83

0.30

0.0194

0.11

0.82

Water and Soap

98

54.4

36

60.0

0.0495

0.61

0.2359

0.27

1.41

0.56

0.1917

0.24

1.36

Q4I

             

None

12

6.7

14

23.3

 

1.00

   

1.00

   

Water only

57

31.7

10

16.7

 

0.15

0.0003

0.05

0.41

0.16

0.0008

0.05

0.45

Water and Soap

111

61.7

36

60.0

0.0009

0.28

0.0034

0.12

0.65

0.29

0.0077

0.12

0.72

Q4M

             

<30 sec

89

49.4

40

66.7

 

1.00

   

1.00

   

30 sec – 60 sec

63

35.0

12

20.0

 

0.42

0.0197

0.20

0.85

0.44

0.0302

0.20

0.90

>60 sec

28

15.6

8

13.3

0.0543

0.64

0.3074

0.25

1.46

0.81

0.6472

0.31

1.95

Q16

             

No

0

0.0

4

6.7

 

1.00

   

1.00

   

Yes

180

100.0

56

93.3

0.0036

0.01

<0.0001

0.00

6487.54

0.01

<0.0001

0.00

2979.95

Q20*

             

0

106

58.9

45

75.0

 

1.00

   

1.00

   

1

74

41.1

15

25.0

0.0305

0.48

0.0271

0.24

0.90

0.52

0.0606

0.26

1.01

Q21*

             

0

99

55.0

41

68.3

 

1.00

   

1.00

   

1

54

30.0

16

26.7

 

0.72

0.3245

0.36

1.37

0.69

0.2974

0.33

1.37

2

27

15.0

3

5.0

0.0682

0.27

0.0387

0.06

0.81

0.26

0.0393

0.06

0.82

Q23

             

Visit a GP

95

52.8

23

38.3

 

1.00

   

1.00

   

Self-medicate

61

33.9

28

46.7

 

1.90

0.0496

1.00

3.62

2.07

0.0346

1.06

4.12

Visit Hospital

6

3.3

1

1.7

 

0.69

0.7354

0.04

4.31

0.45

0.4796

0.02

3.03

Visit Polyclinic

18

10.0

8

13.3

0.1836

1.84

0.2098

0.68

4.65

1.81

0.2570

0.63

4.94

CI = Confidence interval, OR = Odds ratio

^- Fisher Exact’s Test

*Each variable in these questions were given a score. Question 20 follows the same scoring as the previous question. Question 21: a score of 1 was given for each method of giving feedback

+ Age, marital status and having flu over the last 6 months were used to calculate the adjusted OR in the multivariate logistic regression model

# Participants who self-reported having at least one episode of diarrhoea or flu, respectively, in the past six months

The longer duration (between 30 s to a minute) of hand washing (Q4M) reduced the risk of diarrhoea by about two times (AOR = 0.44; 95 % CI = 0.20-0.90; Table 3) as compared to participants who washed their hands for less than 30 s. In addition, there were significantly high risk of diarrhoea when individuals reported not ensuring the food is well-cooked before consumption (P < 0.00001) (Q16; Table 3). Finally, participants who preferred to provide feedback to NEA/MOH and the restaurant/hawker stall when they experience diarrhoea (Q21) were about four times less likely (AOR = 0.26; 95 % CI = 0.06-0.82) to have diarrhoea as compared to those who preferred not to provide feedback at all (Table 3).

Discussion

Our results showed that there was good knowledge and attitude towards hand and food hygiene among the residents in the heartland of a developed Singapore. The vast majority of participants were well-informed of the recommended hand and food hygiene behaviour and practices to minimise risk of diarrhoea disease. About 77 % of the expected knowledge and attitude were observed in at least 80 % of the participants. This was likely due to the national hygiene campaigns launched through HPB since 2001, which had been effective in raising awareness and knowledge of simple hygiene practices, similarly in other countries [1517, 3032]. Nonetheless, the good knowledge and attitude did not translate and sustain positively into good behaviour and practice of hygiene in their daily lives. There were only about 31 % of the expected behaviours and practises observed in at least 80 % of the participants. These may be due to a few key reasons. First, the busy working lifestyle, among adults range from 32–52, and of median age 36 who were at higher risk of diarrhoea, may have made food and hand hygiene the least concern over time, especially when low prevalence of severe and fatal diarrhoea were reported in a developed community. However, further qualitative study would be required to fully understand the association behind this observation. Second, the high standard of medical, water and sanitation facilities may have also created a false sense of health security, which may have resulted in complacency and increased redundancy in practising good hygiene. Third, participants may have the incorrect assumption that severe diarrhoea disease would only affect children, but not adults since adults were presumed to have a stronger immune system than children [2]. Lastly, there may still be a lack of infrastructure or effective programmes to promote sustainable good hygiene behaviour in households. These deserve further studies and assessments.

Our results suggested complacency among participants as they believed their current behaviour and practices were sufficient to prevent diarrhoea diseases. Although most participants reported washing hands with soap more than three times a day and was not troublesome, the response for routinely performing all the recommended eight steps of handwashing was still very low. Of concern, the behaviour of handwashing before and after contact with sick individuals and children were considered crucial to breaking transmission of diseases, as according to the WHO “My 5 moments of hand hygiene” [4, 30, 31], but there were only less than 65 % of the participants that practised these. This further highlighted a substantial gap between the behaviour of the community and the public health official’s perception on proper hand hygiene and cleanliness.

Remarkably, NEA grading had the least influence on the choices of food outlets on the participants, as compared to recommendation of good food. This is likely due to the fact that the NEA grading is only assessed once a year, which the participants may find it inaccurate to assess the level of cleanliness at any particular time. The general public may also have a perception that the authority would have already closed down stalls which are evaluated as unhygienic, and stalls that are opened should be considered sufficiently hygienic. The low proportion of people who are likely to inform NEA/MOH of diarrhoea disease clearly suggested underreporting of diarrhoea incidence, and hence, more effort is required to improve the surveillance of diarrhoea diseases. One possible alternative is an online platform or application that could be more convenient for the public to self-report while enabling confidentiality, and 63.3 % supported this intervention. The online self-report portal would also be very useful to capture the potential 37.1 % of the participants that is likely missing in the national surveillance system who prefer to self-medicate when they had diarrhoea as shown in other studies [3335].

Proactive community partnership and engagement such as having regular community health ambassadors advocating good hygiene messages with soap/hand sanitizer using a door-to-door approach, and having open dialogue sessions may help to improve the compliance to good hygiene practices [36]. These ambassadors can be the local trained residents, or students with guidance from a professional staff from a social organisations such as the HPB, NEA, People’s Association [37] and the Public Hygiene Council [38]. A study in a Singapore polyclinic had also shown that by adopting an open communication platform between nurses and infection control team on compliance identification and effective solutions, there was improvements in hand hygiene compliance. However, the long term sustainability remained to be assessed [30].

Almost all participants were highly supportive for children to learn and practise these good hygiene habits during early childhood education period, which has also been shown to be effective in reducing diarrhoea and absenteeism [39]. It was reported that the school hygiene promotion, water treatment interventions and school sanitation improvements were not as effective to reduce diarrhoea in schools with greater water availability, as compared to in schools with very poor water availability [40, 41]. In addition, an annual hand and food hygiene campaign, which had been shown to be effective in reducing diarrhoea disease even in mostly rural areas [13, 14, 42]. These highlighted the importance of sustainable compliance to good hygiene behaviour, beside good knowledge and infrastructure. However, the local campaigns should be strongly tailored towards educating the working adults in Singapore, on the current gaps to adopt the complete good hygiene practices with closer monitoring. Moreover, this would also require regular evaluation to obtain the most effective method of delivering the hygiene education [43].

Participants were also supportive of having alcohol-based hand sanitizers conveniently located within public transport systems, where it may potentially be useful to prevent and delay transmission of diseases, particularly during an epidemic, and this may also address some of the barriers to better hand hygiene compliance [30]. However, further study is required to assess the efficacy of providing hand sanitizer in public transport to reduce diarrhoea, as the use of public transport was reported to be less likely to spread diseases like influenza infection compared to in the home environment. In addition, handwashing as well as the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers were reported to have minimal protective effect against diseases such as influenza infection [44].

The behaviour of washing hands before and after interaction with children and sick people, which were highly recommended practises for infection control, had a large protective effect against having diarrhoea. This reemphasized the importance of this simple public health practice that the community can perform to reduce diarrhoea, and also potentially stop transmission of other infectious diseases [45, 46]. Not surprisingly, the duration of washing hands can also help to reduce diarrhoea, probably as a surrogate for the thoroughness of hand washing, similarly observed in other published studies [31, 47, 48]. We postulated that the increased risk of diarrhoea among singles and those who had flu in the past six months is probably due to lower family and social motivation for compliance of good hygiene behaviour, compared to married individuals with children under the age of five. Moreover, we are proposing that having flu in the past six months is likely to be a social predictor of having diarrhoea around the same period as a result of poor hand hygiene behaviours, instead of a clinical predictor of flu severity. This is also supported by the fact that the association of diarrhoea as a clinical symptom of flu is less likely to be associated with young adults infected with influenza [49, 50], compared with children hospitalised with influenza [51, 52]. Furthermore, one study had shown the potential impact of good hand hygiene behaviour advocated during influenza pandemic can help to reduce acute diarrhoea during the same period [53]. Moreover, the higher risk of diarrhoea among individuals who preferred self-medication over those who would visit the general practitioner (GP), is likely due to their complacent attitude of good hygiene and the mild disease, which does not require a higher standard of medical care. On the contrary, participants who preferred to provide feedback to NEA/MOH, hawker stalls and restaurants were more likely to be concerned on the impact of diarrhoea disease on their health, and hence, may have influenced their actions that could potentially reduce diarrhoea.

This study has several limitations. First, the cross-sectional nature of this study does not allowed the temporal relationship to be established between the explanatory and outcome variable. Hence, there may be Hawthorne effect. Second, we were unable to perform randomised sampling of other constituencies in Singapore, and to do sampling from every zone and block in each constituency which would increase the validity and accuracy of the survey’s findings. Some of the zones sampled tend to have newer blocks, where the demographics and housing type may be invariably different. However, this bias should be minimal as the proportion of ethnic groups would be similar across other developed communities in Singapore since there is a housing policy to sustain a well-balanced ethnic groups in all HDB blocks [54]. Third, the small percentage of respondents and the lack of the housing demographics among those who rejected the study, may limit the generalisability of results to the general population in Singapore. However, the guiding reference from HDB [26] had shown that our subpopulation is very similar to the general housing demographics in Singapore, and so the variability of impact may be minimal. Furthermore, there is at least 79 % power with the current sample size to detect true positive associations with risk effect of 1.8 and proportion difference of 20 % with 5 % level of significance. Fourth, as this survey is conducted in English, some willing participants may reject to participate due to a lack of comprehension of the survey questions. However, this number is small as most residents know English, and Chinese translated version of the survey was also made available. Fourth, we were not able to assess for non-respondent bias as the majority of non-responders were unwilling to provide the minimal demographic information for analysis. Fifth, the choices provided were categorical, which may limit the possibilities of answers as compared to free-text design. However, categorical questions can provide simple and direct answers, and the consistency required for the data collection process and the subsequent analysis. Lastly, recall bias may be present in the survey, but to a minimal extent. This is because these questions were generally crafted to target their daily general practise and attitude. Furthermore, the self-reporting of at least one episode of diarrhoea or flu over the past six month minimises misclassification bias as diarrhoea and flu episode can be an eventful one. Nevertheless, this is thus limited in the fact that we cannot assume that the participants had both flu and diarrhoea during the same time. Additionally, there should be minimal response bias towards the expected hygiene practices because the behaviour questions were asked before the knowledge and attitude questions.

Conclusions

Diarrhoea disease may not have resulted in as much public health burden as compared to chronic diseases such as diabetes, but it has potential of incurring significant economic impact in the near future, if not managed appropriately, like in many other developing and developed countries [5564]. Therefore, prevention of diarrhoea through having good hygiene practices is important to sustain in the developed residential community. From this study, we found a high level of knowledge and attitude on hand and food hygiene amongst the participants in a developed residential community. However, the hygiene practice and behaviour were not as highly complied as expected. Future interventions should focus more on advocating sustainable behaviour of good hygiene, particularly among working adults, and to highlight the risk factors of diarrhoea. This may be achieved with more active community partnership and engagements driven by the relevant social organisations. The development of evidence-based surveillance capabilities, policies, and preventive measures to increase good hygiene compliance will be critical to reduce diarrhoea in a developed residential community.

Notes

Abbreviations

HDB: 

Housing development board

HPB: 

Health promotion board

NEA: 

National environmental Agency

MOH: 

Ministry of health

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by a Singapore Ministry of Defence funded operational research program and the Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research in the Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health of the National University of Singapore and National University Health System. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. We are grateful for the participation of our participants in this study.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research, Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore
(2)
Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore

References

  1. Walker CL, Rudan I, Liu L, Nair H, Theodoratou E, Bhutta ZA, et al. Global burden of childhood pneumonia and diarrhoea. Lancet. 2013;381(9875):1405–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Walker CL, Black RE. Diarrhoea morbidity and mortality in older children, adolescents, and adults. Epidemiology and infection. 2010;138(9):1215–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Organisation WH: Causes of death 2008 summary. World Health Organization 2008:http://www.who.int/entity/gho/mortality_burden_disease/global_burden_disease_DTH6_2008.xls.
  4. Organisation WH: World Health Report. make every mother and child count. Geneva: World Health Organisation. 2005;2005:190–1.Google Scholar
  5. Scallan E, Majowicz SE, Hall G, Banerjee A, Bowman CL, Daly L, et al. Prevalence of diarrhoea in the community in Australia, Canada, Ireland, and the United States. International journal of epidemiology. 2005;34(2):454–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Wheeler JG, Sethi D, Cowden JM, Wall PG, Rodrigues LC, Tompkins DS, et al. Study of infectious intestinal disease in England: rates in the community, presenting to general practice, and reported to national surveillance. The Infectious Intestinal Disease Study Executive Bmj. 1999;318(7190):1046–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Stenberg A, Macdonald C, Hunter PR. How effective is good domestic kitchen hygiene at reducing diarrhoeal disease in developed countries? A systematic review and reanalysis of the UK IID study BMC public health. 2008;8:71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Adak GK, Long SM, O'Brien SJ. Trends in indigenous foodborne disease and deaths, England and Wales: 1992 to 2000. Gut. 2002;51(6):832–41.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V, McCaig LF, Bresee JS, Shapiro C, et al. Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerging infectious diseases. 1999;5(5):607–25.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Lewis HC, Ethelberg S, Olsen KE, Nielsen EM, Lisby M, Madsen SB, et al. Outbreaks of Shigella sonnei infections in Denmark and Australia linked to consumption of imported raw baby corn. Epidemiology and infection. 2009;137(3):326–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Wong CS, Ang LW, James L, Goh KT. Epidemiological characteristics of cholera in Singapore. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore 2010. 1992–2007;39(7):507–6.Google Scholar
  12. Meftahuddin T. Review of the trends and causes of food borne outbreaks in Malaysia from 1988 to 1997. The Medical journal of Malaysia. 2002;57(1):70–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fewtrell L, Kaufmann RB, Kay D, Enanoria W, Haller L, Colford Jr JM. Water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions to reduce diarrhoea in less developed countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet infectious diseases. 2005;5(1):42–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Luby SP, Agboatwalla M, Painter J, Altaf A, Billhimer WL, Hoekstra RM. Effect of intensive handwashing promotion on childhood diarrhea in high-risk communities in Pakistan: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 2004;291(21):2547–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Pittet D, Hugonnet S, Harbarth S, Mourouga P, Sauvan V, Touveneau S, et al. Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene. The Lancet. 2000;356(9238):1307–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Biran A, Schmidt WP, Wright R, Jones T, Seshadri M, Isaac P, et al. The effect of a soap promotion and hygiene education campaign on handwashing behaviour in rural India: a cluster randomised trial. Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH. 2009;14(10):1303–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Curtis V, Cairncross S. Effect of washing hands with soap on diarrhoea risk in the community: a systematic review. The Lancet infectious diseases. 2003;3(5):275–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ministry of Health S. Epidemiology and control of food poisoning outbreaks in Singapore, 2009–2011. Epidemiol News Bull. 2012;38(3):62–71.Google Scholar
  19. Ministry of Health S: Communicable Disease Surveillance in Singapore 2011. 2011:47–67.Google Scholar
  20. Sibiya JE, Gumbo JR. Knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) survey on water, sanitation and hygiene in selected schools in Vhembe District, Limpopo, South Africa. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2013;10(6):2282–95.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Vivas AP, Gelaye B, Aboset N, Kumie A, Berhane Y, Williams MA. Knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of hygiene among school children in Angolela, Ethiopia. Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene. 2010;51(2):73–9.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Banda K, Sarkar R, Gopal S, Govindarajan J, Harijan BB, Jeyakumar MB, et al. Water handling, sanitation and defecation practices in rural southern India: a knowledge, attitudes and practices study. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2007;101(11):1124–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Biran A, Schmidt WP, Zeleke L, Emukule H, Khay H, Parker J, et al. Hygiene and sanitation practices amongst residents of three long-term refugee camps in Thailand, Ethiopia and Kenya. Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH. 2012;17(9):1133–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Rabbi SE, Dey NC. Exploring the gap between hand washing knowledge and practices in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional comparative study. BMC public health. 2013;13:89.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Reeves LM, Priest PC, Poore MR. School toilets: facilitating hand hygiene? A review of primary school hygiene facilities in a developed country. Journal of public health. 2012;34(4):483–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Public Housing in Singapore: Residents’ Profile, Housing Satisfaction and Preferences (HDB Household survey 2013) [http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10297p.nsf/ImageView/Survey2013/$file/Monograph+1.pdf]
  27. Disease Burden 2010 [https://www.moh.gov.sg/content/moh_web/home/statistics/Health_Facts_Singapore/Disease_Burden.html]
  28. Keep your hands clean [http://www.hpb.gov.sg/HOPPortal/health-article/5652]
  29. Food hygiene standard in Singapore [http://www.nea.gov.sg/public-health/food-hygiene]
  30. Oh E, Mohd Hamzah HB, Chain Yan C, Ang E. Enhancing hand hygiene in a polyclinic in Singapore. International journal of evidence-based healthcare. 2012;10(3):204–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Salmon S, Wang XB, Seetoh T, Lee SY, Fisher DA. A novel approach to improve hand hygiene compliance of student nurses. Antimicrobial resistance and infection control. 2013;2(1):16.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Szilagyi L, Haidegger T, Lehotsky A, Nagy M, Csonka EA, Sun X, et al. A large-scale assessment of hand hygiene quality and the effectiveness of the "WHO 6-steps". BMC infectious diseases. 2013;13:249.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Ang BC, Chen MI, Goh TL, Ng YY, Fan SW. An assessment of electronically captured data in the patient care enhancement system (PACES) for syndromic surveillance. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore. 2005;34(9):539–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Coker RJ, Hunter BM, Rudge JW, Liverani M, Hanvoravongchai P. Emerging infectious diseases in southeast Asia: regional challenges to control. Lancet. 2011;377(9765):599–609.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Wethington H, Bartlett P. Usage and data collection patterns for a novel web-based foodborne-disease surveillance system. Journal of environmental health. 2006;68(7):25–9. 40; quiz 43–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. El Arifeen S, Christou A, Reichenbach L, Osman FA, Azad K, Islam KS, et al. Community-based approaches and partnerships: innovations in health-service delivery in Bangladesh. Lancet. 2013;382(9909):2012–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. People's Association [http://www.pa.gov.sg/]
  38. Public Hygiene Council [http://publichygienecouncil.sg/]
  39. Guinan M, McGuckin M, Ali Y. The effect of a comprehensive handwashing program on absenteeism in elementary schools. American journal of infection control. 2002;30(4):217–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Dreibelbis R, Freeman MC, Greene LE, Saboori S, Rheingans R. The impact of school water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions on the health of younger siblings of pupils: a cluster-randomized trial in Kenya. American journal of public health. 2014;104(1):e91–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Freeman MC, Clasen T, Dreibelbis R, Saboori S, Greene LE, Brumback B, et al. The impact of a school-based water supply and treatment, hygiene, and sanitation programme on pupil diarrhoea: a cluster-randomized trial. Epidemiology and infection. 2014;142(2):340–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Haggerty PA, Muladi K, Kirkwood BR, Ashworth A, Manunebo M. Community-based hygiene education to reduce diarrhoeal disease in rural Zaire: impact of the intervention on diarrhoeal morbidity. International journal of epidemiology. 1994;23(5):1050–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Latham JR, Magiorakos AP, Monnet DL, Alleaume S, Aspevall O, Blacky A, et al. The role and utilisation of public health evaluations in Europe: a case study of national hand hygiene campaigns. BMC public health. 2014;14:131.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Castilla J, Godoy P, Dominguez A, Martin V, Delgado-Rodriguez M, Martinez-Baz I, et al. Risk factors and effectiveness of preventive measures against influenza in the community. Influenza and other respiratory viruses. 2013;7(2):177–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Ejemot RI, Ehiri JE, Meremikwu MM, Critchley JA. Hand washing for preventing diarrhoea. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2008;1, CD004265.Google Scholar
  46. Jefferson T, Del Mar CB, Dooley L, Ferroni E, Al-Ansary LA, Bawazeer GA, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2011;7, CD006207.Google Scholar
  47. Fung IC, Cairncross S. Effectiveness of handwashing in preventing SARS: a review. Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH. 2006;11(11):1749–58.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Teleman MD, Boudville IC, Heng BH, Zhu D, Leo YS. Factors associated with transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome among health-care workers in Singapore. Epidemiology and infection. 2004;132(5):797–803.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Yap J, Tan CH, Cook AR, Loh JP, Tambyah PA, Tan BH, et al. Differing clinical characteristics between influenza strains among young healthy adults in the tropics. BMC infectious diseases. 2012;12:12.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Yun HC, Fugate WH, Murray CK, Cropper TL, Lott L, McDonald JM. Pandemic influenza virus 2009 H1N1 and adenovirus in a high risk population of young adults: epidemiology, comparison of clinical presentations, and coinfection. PloS one. 2014;9(1), e85094.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Punpanich W, Chirapanyanon P, Srisarang S. Clinical characteristics and hospital charges among Thai children hospitalized with influenza. The Southeast Asian journal of tropical medicine and public health. 2014;45(1):75–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Nisar N, Aamir UB, Badar N, Mehmood MR, Alam MM, Kazi BM, et al. Prediction of clinical factors associated with pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 in Pakistan. PloS one. 2014;9(2), e89178.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Crepey P, Pivette M, Desvarieux M. Potential impact of influenza A/H1N1 pandemic and hand-gels on acute diarrhea epidemic in France. PloS one. 2013;8(10), e75226.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Rahman MM, Kiong TC. Integration policy in Singapore: a transnational inclusion approach. Asian Ethnicity. 2012;14(1):80–98.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Constenla D, Linhares A, Rheingans R, Antil L, Waldman E, Da Silva L. Economic impact of a rotavirus vaccine in Brazil. J Health Popul Nutr. 2008;26(4):388–96.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Fischer T, Anh D, Antil L, Cat N, Kilgore P, Thiem V, et al. Health care costs of diarrheal disease and estimates of the cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination in Vietnam. The Journal of infectious diseases. 2005;192(10):1720–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Flem E, Latipov R, Nurmatov Z, Xue Y, Kasymbekova K, Rheingans R. Costs of diarrheal disease and the cost-effectiveness of a rotavirus vaccination program in kyrgyzstan. The Journal of infectious diseases. 2009;200:S195–202.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Jacobs P, Shane L, Fassbender K, Wang E, Moineddin R, Ford-Jones E. Economic analysis of rotavirus-associated diarrhea in the metropolitan Toronto and Peel regions of Ontario. Can J Infect Dis. 2002;13:3.Google Scholar
  59. Jin H, Wang B, Fang Z, Duan Z, Gao Q, Liu N, et al. Hospital-based study of the economic burden associated with rotavirus diarrhea in eastern China. Vaccine. 2011;29:7801–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. MacIntyre U, Villiers F. The economic burden of diarrheal disease in a tertiary level hospital, gauteng, south Africa. The Journal of infectious diseases. 2010;202(S1):S116–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Mendelsohn A, Asirvatham J, Mwamburi D, Sowmynarayanan T, Malik V, Muliyil J, et al. Estimates of the economic burden of rotavirus-associated and all-cause diarrhoea in Vellore, India. Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH. 2008;13(7):934–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Rheingans R, Constenla D, Antil L, Innis B, Breuer T. Economic and health burden of rotavirus gastroenteritis for the 2003 birth cohort in eight Latin American and Caribbean countries. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2007;21(4):192–204.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Russell S. The economic burden of illness for households in developing countries: a review of studies focusing on malaria, tuberculosis, and human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004;71 Suppl 2:147–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Wielen M, Giaquinto C, Gothefors L, Huelsse C, Huet F, Littmann M, et al. Impact of community-acquired paediatric rotavirus gastroenteritis on family life: data from the REVEAL study. BMC Fam Pract. 2010;11:22.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Pang et al. 2015

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement