1. Zimlichman, E, Henderson, D, Tamir, O, et al. Health care-associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173: 2039–2046.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI2. Mo, Y, Low, I, Tambyah, SK, et al. The socio-economic impact of multidrug-resistant nosocomial infections: a qualitative study. J Hosp Infect 2019; 102(4): 454–460.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline3. Kostakoğlu, U, Saylan, S, Karataş, M, et al. Cost analysis and evaluation of nosocomial infections in intensive care units. Turk J Med Sci 2016; 46: 1385–1392.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline4. Zacher, B, Haller, S, Willrich, N, et al. Application of a new methodology and R package reveals a high burden of healthcare-associated infections (HAI) in Germany compared to the average in the European Union/European Economic Area, 2011 to 2012. Euro Surveill 2019; 24(46): 1900135.
Google Scholar | Crossref5. Nasiri, A, Balouchi, A, Rezaie-Keikhaie, K, et al. Knowledge, attitude, practice, and clinical recommendation toward infection control and prevention standards among nurses: a systematic review. Am J Infect Control 2019; 47(7): 827–833.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline6. Tilson, HH . Adherence or compliance? Changes in terminology. Ann Pharmacother 2004; 38: 161–162.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI7. Meng, M, Sorber, M, Herzog, A, et al. Technological innovations in infection control: a rapid review of the acceptance of behavior monitoring systems and their contribution to the improvement of hand hygiene. Am J Infect Control 2019; 47(4): 439–447.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline8. Lambe, KA, Lydon, S, Madden, C, et al. Hand hygiene compliance in the ICU: a systematic review. Crit Care Med 2019; 47: 1251–1257.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline9. WHO . Hand hygiene monitoring and feedback, https://www.who.int/gpsc/5may/monitoring_feedback/en/ (accessed 10 October 2020).
Google Scholar10. Gould, DJ, Moralejo, D, Drey, N, et al. Interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in patient care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 9: CD005186.
Google Scholar | Medline11. WHO . Hand hygiene: why, how & when? https://www.who.int/gpsc/5may/Hand_Hygiene_Why_How_and_When_Brochure.pdf?ua=1 (2009, accessed 21 January 2021).
Google Scholar12. Iversen, AM, Kavalaris, CP, Hansen, R, et al. Clinical experiences with a new system for automated hand hygiene monitoring: a prospective observational study. Am J Infect Control 2020; 48(5): 527–533.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline13. Benudis, A, Stone, S, Sait, AS, et al. Pitfalls and unexpected benefits of an electronic hand hygiene monitoring system. Am J Infect Control 2019; 47(9): 1102–1106.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline14. Levin, PD, Razon, R, Schwartz, C, et al. Obstacles to the successful introduction of an electronic hand hygiene monitoring system, a cohort observational study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2019; 8: 43.
Google Scholar15. Srigley, JA, Gardam, M, Fernie, G, et al. Hand hygiene monitoring technology: a systematic review of efficacy. J Hosp Infect 2015; 89(1): 51–60.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline16. International Council of Nurses . The ICN code of ethics for nurses, https://www.icn.ch/sites/default/files/inline-files/2012_ICN_Codeofethicsfornurses_eng.pdf (2012, accessed 25 November 2020).
Google Scholar17. Verbeek, PP . Some misunderstandings about the moral significance of technology. In: Kroes, P, Verbeek, PP (eds) The moral status of technical artefacts. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014, pp. 75–88.
Google Scholar | Crossref18. O’Keefe-McCarthy, S . Technologically-mediated nursing care: the impact on moral agency. Nurs Ethics 2009; 16(6): 786–796.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI19. Korhonen, E-S, Nordman, T, Eriksson, K. Technology and its ethics in nursing and caring journals: an integrative literature review. Nurs Ethics 2015; 22(5): 561–576.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI20. Barnard, A, Sandelowski, M. Technology and humane nursing care: (ir)reconcilable or invented difference. J Adv Nurs 2001; 34(3): 367–375.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI21. Cuchetti, C, Grace, PJ. Authentic intention: tempering the dehumanizing aspects of technology on behalf of good nursing care. Nurs Philos 2020; 21(1): e12255.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline22. Lupton, D . A more-than-human approach to bioethics: the example of digital health. Bioethics 2020; 34(9): 969–976.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline23. Ives, J, Dunn, M, Molewijk, B, et al. Standards of practice in empirical bioethics research: towards a consensus. BMC Med Ethics 2018; 19: 68.
Google Scholar24. Pols, J . Good relations with technology: empirical ethics and aesthetics in care. Nurs Philos 2017; 18(1): e12154.
Google Scholar | Crossref25. von Elm, E, Altman, DG, Egger, M, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 344–349.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI26. Venkatesh, V, Morris, MG, Davis, GB, et al. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quart 2003; 27: 425–478.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI27. Venkatesh, V, Thong, J, Xu, X. Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: a synthesis and the road ahead. J Assoc Inf Syst 2016; 17: 328–376.
Google Scholar | Crossref28. Weber, K. MEESTAR : Ein Modell zur ethischen Evaluierung sozio-technischer Arrangements in der Pflege- und Gesundheitsversorgung [MEESTAR: A Model for the Ethical Evaluation of Socio-Technical Arrangements in Nursing and Healthcare]. In: Weber, K, Frommeld, D, Manzeschke, A, et al. (eds) Technisierung des Alltags – Beitrag für ein gutes Leben? [Technification of everyday life – contribution to a good life?]. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2015, pp. 247–262.
Google Scholar29. Schley, A, Balzer, K. Using MEESTAR for early evaluation of ethical, legal and social implications of a socio-technical support system for mechanically ventilated patients. Lessons learned from the ACTIVATE project. In: Haltaufderheide, J, Hovemann, J, Vollmann, J (eds) Aging between participation and simulation. Berlin; Boston, MA: De Gruyter, 2020, pp. 105–122.
Google Scholar30. Spagnolli, A, Guardigli, E, Orso, V, et al. Measuring user acceptance of wearable symbiotic devices: validation study across application scenarios. In: Jacucci, G, Gamberini, L, Freeman, J (eds) Symbiotic interaction, symbiotic 2015 lecture notes in computer science, vol. 8820. Cham: Springer, 2014, pp. 87–98.
Google Scholar | Crossref31. Acquadro, C, Conway, K, Hareendran, A, et al. Literature review of methods to translate health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials. Value Health 2008; 11(3): 509–521.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI32. Weber, K . Extended model for ethical evaluation. In: Karafillidis, A, Weidner, R (eds) Developing support technologies integrating multiple perspectives to create assistance that people really want. Cham: Springer, 2018, pp. 257–263.
Google Scholar | Crossref33. WHO . COVID-19 weekly epidemiological update. Data as received by WHO from national authorities, as of 25 October 2020, 10 am CEST, https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/weekly-epidemiological-update---27-october-2020 (2020, accessed 25 October 2020).
Google Scholar34. Meng, M, Sorber, M, Kugler, C. The potential of behaviour monitoring systems and their support in hospitals during pandemics. Implications for research based on a rapid review. Hyg Med 2020; 45: 1–6.
Google Scholar35. Croux, C, Dehon, C. Influence functions of the Spearman and Kendall correlation measures. Stat Meth Appl 2010; 19: 497–515.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI36. Remmers, H. Pflege und Technik. Stand der Diskussion und zentrale ethische Fragen [Care and technology. Status quo of discussion and key ethical issues]. Ethik Med 2019; 31: 407–430.
Google Scholar | Crossref37. Hülsken-Giesler, M, Peters, M, Müller, K. [Tracking systems in people with dementia in long-term care – an integrative review]. Pflege 2019; 32(6): 353–363.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline38. Landau, R, Werner, S. Ethical aspects of using GPS for tracking people with dementia: recommendations for practice. Int Psychogeriatr 2012; 24(3): 358–366.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline39. Schrems, BM . Vulnerabilität in der Pflege [Vulnerability in Nursing Care]. Weinheim; Basel: Beltz Juventa, 2020.
Google Scholar40. Zhang, S, Kong, X, Lamb, KV, et al. High nursing workload is a main associated factor of poor hand hygiene adherence in Beijing, China: an observational study. Int J Nurs Pract 2019; 25(2): e12720.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline41. Kearns, AJ . ‘Ought implies can’ & missed care. Nurs Philos 2020; 21: e12272.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline42. Vryonides, S, Papastavrou, E, Charalambous, A, et al. The ethical dimension of nursing care rationing: a thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Nurs Ethics 2015; 22(8): 881–900.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI43. Scott, SM, Scott, PA. Nursing, advocacy and public policy. Nurs Ethics. Epub ahead of print 24 November 2020. DOI: 10.1177/0969733020961823.
Google Scholar44. Tarantini, C, Brouqui, P, Wilson, R, et al. Healthcare workers’ attitudes towards hand-hygiene monitoring technology. J Hosp Infect 2019; 102(4): 413–418.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline45. Schmidt, AT, Engelen, B. The ethics of nudging: an overview. Philos Compass 2020; 15: e12658.
Google Scholar46. Iversen, A-M, Stangerup, M, From-Hansen, M, et al. Light-guided nudging and data-driven performance feedback improve hand hygiene compliance among nurses and doctors. Am J Infect Control. Epub ahead of print 10 November 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2020.11.007.
Google Scholar47. Mills, C . The heteronomy of choice architecture. Rev Phil Psych 2015; 6: 495–509.
Google Scholar | Crossref