Cited by 41Fecal contamination and water qualityInfection Control in HealthcareFood Safety and Hygiene

Dirty hands: bacteria of faecal origin on commuters' hands

Open access
JUDAH, G., DONACHIE, P., COBB, E., SCHMIDT, W., HOLLAND, M., CURTIS, V.·2010·Epidemiology and Infection

Abstract

SUMMARY: Although many studies have investigated bacteria on the hands of health-care workers and caregivers, few have looked at microbiological contamination on the hands of the general adult public. This study investigated faecal bacteria on the hands of commuters in five UK cities. Of the 404 people sampled 28% were found to have bacteria of faecal origin on their hands. A breakdown by city showed that the proportion of people with contaminated hands increased the further north the city of investigation (P<0·001), an effect which was due in large part to a significant trend in men but not in women. Bus users were more contaminated than train users. The results of this exploratory study indicate that hand hygiene practices in the UK may be inadequate and that faecal indicator bacteria on hands may be used to monitor the effect of hand-washing promotion campaigns.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0950268809990641

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A survey by Judah and co-workers reported that 28% of commuters in five UK cities had bacteria of faecal origin on their hands.

    “A survey by Judah and co-workers64 reported that 28% of commuters in five UK cities had bacteria of faecal origin on their hands.”

    From Hygiene: new hopes, new horizons (2011) · cites this paper as [64]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
JUDAH, G., DONACHIE, P., COBB, E., SCHMIDT, W., HOLLAND, M., & CURTIS, V.
Affiliations
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
JUDAH, G.
Venue
Epidemiology and Infection
Published
2009-09-02
Volume
138
Issue
3
Pages
409-414
ISSN
  • 0950-2688 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-4409
OpenAlex
W2157348433
Cited by
39
References
16
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Epidemiology and Infection (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Unilever
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Fecal contamination and water quality
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
Keywords
fecal indicator bacteria, hand contamination, hand hygiene, commuters, urban geography, sex differences, hand hygiene monitoring
MeSH terms
Adult, Bacteria, Bacteriological Techniques, Feces, Female, United Kingdom, Hand, Hand Disinfection, Humans, Male, Skin

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review