Suchergebnisse

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Boge, J., Kristoffersen, K. & Martinsen, K. (2013). Bodily cleanliness in modern nursing. Nursing Philosophy , 14(2), 78-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-769X.2012.00545.x, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-769X.2012.00545.x . This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. ; Why are bodily washing practices the way they are in nursing? Michel Foucault argues that modern democratic societies discipline human bodies in accordance with political interests. In the extension of that argumentation we will show that bodily cleanliness in modern nursing may have been used as a disciplining tool. The first part of our discussion takes as its point of departure the second half of the 19th/the beginning of the 20th centuries, the period in which modern nursing emerged. At that time scientific theories on hygiene seem to have legitimized the political effort to produce a clean, pleasant‐smelling, decent, obedient, and productive population. Doctors, nurses and teachers played important roles in the implementation of hygienic bodily washing practices. The second part of the discussion focuses on the post‐War period. At that time humanistic needs theories seem to have legitimized political argumentation for independent patients who washed themselves if possible. Those who could not manage on their own, should, as far as possible, be washed by cheaper staff, so that nurses could concentrate on medical treatment. Finally we argue that present day bodily washing practices in nursing are in accordance with the norms of appearance and smell that arose in the second half of the 19th and the first part of the 20th centuries. We further argue that staff with little or no education perform much of the bodily nursing work. Self‐care seems to be of interest only when it reduces public expenses.

The Singapore Management University undertook the second wave of the Public Cleanliness Satisfaction Survey (PCSS) with over 2000 Singapore resident respondents. The 2018 wave of the PCSS continued to reflect the overall satisfaction with public cleanliness in Singapore. There was a slight increase in the proportion of Singaporeans satisfied with the overall cleanliness of public areas which they had recently used (82% in 2017 vs. 84% in 2018). Significantly more Singaporeans are satisfied with the cleanliness of spaces after public events (63% in 2017 vs. 74% in 2018). Satisfaction with the cleanliness of food outlets is still the lowest among public spaces, but some areas have shown significant improvement. For example, more Singaporeans are satisfied with the cleanliness of wet markets (65% in 2017 vs. 73% in 2018). Singaporeans are also becoming more prosocial when it comes to matters of public cleanliness. There has been an increase in pro-social behaviours, such as people clearing their own utensils at hawker centres. More Singaporeans reported that they cleared their utensils at hawker centres most or all of the time (35% in 2017 vs. 49% in 2018). Additionally, more Singaporeans reported seeing others clearing their own utensils at hawker centres at least some of the time (80% in 2017 vs. 88% in 2018). There is also much consensus among Singaporeans about what constitutes littering. Improper disposal of an item no matter whether it was small or inconvenient was still considered as littering. There was considerable support for enforcement to ensure less littering with 76% of respondents wanting the government to put more focus on having persistent litterers pick up litter through Corrective Work and 65% hoping for more enforcement officers on the ground. Credit for the increased satisfaction with cleanliness must go to all the stakeholders involved – public agencies, cleaning contractors and residents who have worked towards improving cleanliness standards. Nonetheless relying only on cleaning services to achieve higher levels of cleanliness, is not sustainable in the longer time, especially in areas which currently do not have high levels of satisfaction. This calls for more concerted efforts where Singaporeans, public agencies and food outlets co-create a culture of cleanliness in these spaces.

The authors undertook the Public Cleanliness Satisfaction Survey. The survey was completed in March 2017 and was made possible through funds from the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources. The survey was carried out by the research company, Blackbox Research. The survey sample is representative of the demographics of the Singapore population. In particular, we sought the views of 2000 Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents aged 21 years and above. A response rate of about 70% of eligible households was obtained. In general, we found that there was a high level of satisfaction on the cleanliness of public spaces in Singapore. Based on our Public Cleanliness Satisfaction Index ("Index"), 82% of the respondents were satisfied with the cleanliness of public spaces that they have visited before. Notwithstanding this, the levels of satisfaction of cleanliness differed across the different domains and different public spaces categorised under each domain. We found that respondents were more satisfied with cleanliness in some domains such as transport (93%), leisure (89%) and commuter paths (83%) and less satisfied with cleanliness in other domains such as neighbourhood (81%), food outlets (69%) and after public events (59%). The results of the survey show that more can be done by all the stakeholders, be it the Government, the private sector or the community and individuals, to keep public spaces clean and liveable for everyone.

The Singapore Management University undertook the third wave of the Public Cleanliness Satisfaction Survey (PCSS) with 1716 Singapore resident respondents providing responses before the start of the Circuit Breaker. The 2019 wave of the PCSS continued to reflect the overall satisfaction with public cleanliness in Singapore. Satisfaction with cleanliness and cleaning services has improved substantially across all domains. Ninety three percent of survey respondents were satisfied with the cleanliness of public spaces that they had recently visited, a 9% increase from the findings in 2018. There was a substantial increase in satisfaction with the cleanliness of food and beverage (F&B) outlets with a 25% increase in respondents' satisfaction with hawker centres compared to a year ago (62% in 2018 vs 87% in 2019). Some of the increase might be attributed to the heightened cleaning efforts as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. Despite the overall satisfaction, 23% of respondents noted that the thoroughness of the cleaning in hawker centres and coffee shops was still insufficient. The study also examined public opinion about personal responsibility for public cleanliness. Questions were asked regarding tray returns at F&B outlets, confronting individuals who litter and the maintenance of cleanliness in neighbourhoods. On the returning of trays in F&B establishments, 36% of respondents reported that they were unsure whether trays should be returned. About the same proportion expected cleaners to return the trays instead. Over 90% of respondents were likely to confront family or friends who littered. However, only 22% would confront a stranger on this matter. Just under half of respondents would dispose of an empty plastic bottle lying on the floor into a close by bin. Even fewer would pick up the bottle to dispose it if there was no nearby bin. Majority of survey respondents also expected residents in the neighbourhood to be responsible for the cleanliness of their environment. They believed that residents should help move excess trash to the central bin centre rather than wait for the cleaners to clear it the next morning (81%). Respondents were of the unanimous view that residents who see overflowing trash bins should contact the town council so that cleaners can clear the bins promptly. The results of the survey indicated that there was substantial reliance on cleaning services to ensure the cleanliness of surroundings. In fact, 87% of respondents acknowledged that Singapore is clean only because of the efficiency of its cleaning services. Nonetheless, 99% of respondents also agreed that residents should be encouraged to be involved in the upkeep of their environment. This may be an uphill task given that less than half (46%) of survey respondents indicated that they would volunteer in a neighbourhood group that championed cleanliness matters. Most respondents (96%) agreed that residents must work together with cleaners to keep the neighbourhood clean. In addition to understanding views about public cleanliness, the 2019 wave of the survey also asked about public hygiene. More than 95% of respondents were agreeable to legislation and the enforcement of public hygiene in shared spaces such as childcare centres, eldercare facilities, schools, food establishments and shopping centres. Respondents also expected that building operators be made responsible for the public hygiene of their buildings. Given the results of this wave of the survey, we suggest some interventions be adopted by the general public, at the neighbourhood level and by building operators.

Pressures for cleanliness in inter-war Tel-Aviv stemmed from the British government, the autonomous Jewish Municipality, local residents and visiting Zionists. This article reconstructs Tel-Aviv's sanitation during the 1920s and 1930s, describes and analyses attempts to clean the urban public space and their limited success. It is argued that the sanitary reality and the issue of cleanliness and squalor in Tel-Aviv, 'The First Hebrew City', reflected British colonial policies, Zionist national ideologies, ethnic and social stereotypes.

Consumption, everyday life and sustainability -- Natural resources and consumer choices -- Cycles of consumption and escalators of demand -- Trajectories and transitions -- Reconfiguring practice -- Method and approach -- The science of comfort: constructing normality -- Defining comfort: a state of mind, an attribute or an achievement? -- Playing God with the indoor climate -- Quantifying comfort -- Qualifying comfort -- Constructing comfort -- The co-evolution of comfort: interdependence and innovation -- Dimensions and dynamics -- Difference and coherence: acquiring and using air-conditioning -- Diffusion, diversity and lighting -- Comfort as collective practice: the siesta -- Reconfiguring comfort -- Regimes of comfort: systems in transition -- Levels, layers and landscapes -- Convergence, abstraction and reversal -- Escalating and standardizing concepts of comfort -- Introducing cleanliness: morality, technology and practice -- Questions of cleanliness -- Morality, technology and practice -- Humours, miasmas and germs -- Dirt and discrimination -- Commodifying cleanliness -- Qualifying cleanliness -- Behind the bathroom door: revolving rationales -- Bathroom consumption -- Reasons and rationales -- Understanding bathing and showering -- Bathtime stories -- Power showering in theory and practice -- Laundering: a system of systems -- Laundering as work -- Escalating standards or redefining service? -- Why wash? -- What is washed? -- When is the laundry done? -- What does 'doing the laundry' involve? -- The laundry as a system of systems -- Laundry habits: integrating practices -- Classifications and categories -- Innovation and tradition -- Millers of meaning and practice -- System and service -- Reconsidering cleanliness -- Reconfiguring routine -- Redefining service -- Convenience, co-ordination and convention -- Convenience and the pace of life -- Co-ordination and fragmentation -- Convenience devices -- Rush and calm -- Convenience and convention -- Ratchets, pinwheels, cogs and spirals -- Regimes, services and the reorganization of normality -- Models and mechanisms.

Schnall, Benton, and Harvey (2008) hypothesized that physical cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments. In support of this idea, they found that individuals make less severe judgments when they are primed with the concept of cleanliness (Exp. 1) and when they wash their hands after experiencing disgust (Exp. 2). We conducted direct replications of both studies using materials supplied by the original authors. We did not find evidence that physical cleanliness reduced the severity of moral judgments using samples sizes that provided over .99 power to detect the original effect sizes. Our estimates of the overall effect size were much smaller than estimates from Experiment 1 (original d = −0.60, 95% CI [−1.23, 0.04], N = 40; replication d = −0.01, 95% CI [−0.28, 0.26], N = 208) and Experiment 2 (original d = −0.85, 95% CI [−1.47, −0.22], N = 43; replication d = 0.01, 95% CI [−.34, 0.36], N = 126). These findings suggest that the population effect sizes are probably substantially smaller than the original estimates. Researchers investigating the connections between cleanliness and morality should therefore use large sample sizes to have the necessary power to detect subtle effects.