Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:28:59.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Using Force Field Analysis to Promote Use of Personal Protective Equipment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Caroline McCoy White*
Affiliation:
Community Health Care Systems Department, School of Nursing, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon
Marie C. Berger
Affiliation:
Community Health Care Systems Department, School of Nursing, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon
*
Community Health Care Systems Department, School of Nursing, Oregon Health Sciences University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97201-3098

Extract

Force field analysis, a technique promulgated by Lewin 50 years ago, is an aid to infection control practice in situations where it is necessary for individuals to substitute new routines for previously accepted practice, as in the required used of personal protective equipment as part of Universal Precautions. By providing a way to link the multiple factors that may be determinants of an individual's behavior, force field analysis offers a way to uncover salient issues and to identify potentially fruitful avenues for intervention to promote the desired behavior change.

Force field analysis directs attention to the goal(s) to be achieved through the behavior and to the forces that drive or restrain the individual in the performance of the behavior being examined. Viewed in relation to use of personal protective equipment as part of infection control procedures, using force field analysis involves becoming clear about the purpose(s) of using personal protective equipment, factors that motivate and make easy the use of personal protective equipment, and factors that act as barriers or deterrents to using personal protective equipment. Recent commentaries in this journal have addressed these issues separately: Jackson and Lynch described the differing purposes of systems of infection control commonly referred to as Universal Precautions and their consequently differing procedures, pointing out potentials for confusion owing to goal; Campbell, 3 reviewing theories of motivation and power, suggested that infection control practitioners attend to these in addition to the technical aspects of practice. Force field analysis brings together these and others of the myriad elements that influence behavior, allowing the practitioner to think creatively about why and why not particular behavior occurs and then to think about what might help make the behavior more likely to occur.

Type
Readers' Forum
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Lewin, K. In: Cartwright, D, ed. Behavior and Development as a Function of the Total Situation. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers; 1951.Google Scholar
2. Jackson, MM, Lynch, E An attempt to make an issue less murky: a comparison of four systems for infection precautions. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1991;12:448450.Google Scholar
3. Campbell, B. Power and motivation: important concepts for infection control practitioners. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1991;12:122124.Google Scholar
4. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Physicians, nurses, and AIDS: Preliminary findings from a national survey. Research Activities. 1991;142:23.Google Scholar
5. Courington, KR, Patterson, SL, Howard, RJ. Universal Precautions are not universally followed. Arch Surg. 1991;126:9396.Google Scholar
6. Becker, MH, ed. The Health Belief Model and Personal Health Behavior. Thorofare, NJ: Slack, Inc.; 1974.Google Scholar
7. White, CM, Berger, MC. Response of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and home health agencies in Oregon to AIDS: reports of nursing executives. Am Pub Health. 1991;81:495496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Caplan, AL. The morality of the mundane. In: Kane, RA, Caplan, AL, eds. Everyday Ethics. New York: Springer; 1990; 3750.Google Scholar
9. Gauthier, OK, Turner, JG, Langley, LG, Neil, CJ, Rush, PL. Monitoring Universal Precautions: a new assessment tool. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1991;12:597601.Google Scholar