In this task, you are given a paragraph (from a research paper) and your task is to classify each sentence of the paragraph (assume n sentence) into the following categories: Background, Purpose, Method, Finding/Contribution, or Other. Return the output in this format: 1 - category of sentence 1, 2 - category of sentence 2, ..., n - category of sentence n; where each number indicates the order of the sentence. The categories can be identified using the following questions: 
 Background: - Why is this problem important? - What relevant works have been done before? - What did the previous works miss? - What are the high-level research questions? - How might this help other researchers?
 Purpose: - What specific things do the researchers want to do? - What specific knowledge do the researchers want to know? - What specific hypothesis do the researchers want to test?
 Method: - How did the researchers do it or find it out? - What are the procedures and steps of this research?
 Finding/Contribution: - What did the researchers find out? Did the proposed methods work? - Did things behave as the researchers expected?
Other: put every text fragment that does not fit into any of the categories above here. Put a sentence here if its not in English, is not part of the article, contains numbers and dates, is a caption of a figure or a table, is a formatting error, or you are not sure about it.

[Q]: Background: Hand hygiene is crucial for safe healthcare. Although the use of alcohol hand rubs is encouraged in clinics, there are few studies that focus on the proper use of alcohol hand rubs among nursing students. Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of alcohol-based hand rub application and proper hand washing techniques which influence nursing students' hand hygiene compliance to make recommendations for future practice of hand hygiene training. Design: This cross-sectional study was carried out from May 3/June 3 2016 with the participation of 257 nursing students. Their hand hygiene techniques were analyzed using a UV lamp and an alcohol-based mix marked with fluorescence. Results: Of the participants, 77.0% were first-year students and 55.3% were males. The percentage of skin surface covered by alcohol-based hand rub was 82.0% on both hands. The lowest percentages of skin area covered by fluorescent-labelled hand rub were identified in the metacarpal area near the wrist and thumbs. While there was a difference between points for using proper hand-rub technique on the dorsal and palmar surfaces of the hands (p < 0.01), no difference was determined between the right and left hands (p > 0.05). It was found that the largest fluorescent remains were on fingers after hand-washing, and there was a difference in terms of hand-washing points between right-left hands and dorsal-palmar surfaces (p < 0.01). Conclusions: There is a need to improve nursing students' compliance with hand hygiene. It is suggested that the use of hand-rub among students should be popularized, and new techniques that prevent the frequently omitted areas of the hands should be integrated into the curriculum.
[A]: 1 - background, 2 - background, 3 - background, 4 - purpose, 5 - method, 6 - method, 7 - finding, 8 - finding, 9 - finding, 10 - finding, 11 - finding, 12 - finding, 13 - finding, 14 - finding, 15 - finding, 16 - finding, 17 - finding


[Q]: This study aimed to determine the aetiology of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) by adding polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to conventional methods and to describe the clinical and laboratory features between patients with bacterial pneumonia (BP) and viral pneumonia (VP). Adults with CAP admitted from November 2009 to October 2010 were included. Demographics, comorbidities, severity and clinical features were recorded. Conventional microbiological methods included blood and sputum cultures, acute and convalescent serologic samples, and antigen urinary detection. New methods included multiplex PCR for Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Legionella pneumophila, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, Bordetella pertussis and 15 respiratory viruses. A total of 169 patients were included. Using conventional methods, we identified a pathogen in 51 % of cases. With PCR, up to 70 % of cases had an aetiological diagnosis. Fortyfive patients had BP (34 %), 22 had VP (17 %) and 25 (19 %) had co-infection (BP and VP). Pneumococci and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) were the most frequently identified pathogens. Procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) median values were significantly higher in BP than in VP patients. Shaking chills, higher CURB score and shock were significantly more frequent in BP. A viral infection was identified in more than one-third of patients with CAP. Clinical and laboratory features could help to differentiate between VP and BP and to guide empirical therapy. A. Sangil : E. Calbo : S. Benet : M. E. Viladot : V. Pascual :
[A]: 1 - purpose, 2 - method, 3 - method, 4 - method, 5 - method, 6 - method, 7 - method, 8 - method, 9 - finding, 10 - finding, 11 - finding, 12 - finding, 13 - finding, 14 - finding, 15 - finding, 16 - finding, 17 - finding, 18 - finding, 19 - finding


[Q]: Objective: In cases of community acquired pneumonia (CAP), it has been known that blood cultures have low yields and rarely affect clinical outcomes. Despite many studies predicting the likelihood of bacteremia in CAP patients, those results have been rarely implemented in clinical practice, and use of blood culture in CAP is still increasing. This study evaluated impact of implementing a previously derived and validated bacteremia prediction rule. Methods: In this registry-based before and after study, we used piecewise regression analysis to compare the blood culture rate before and after implementation of the prediction rule. We also compared 30-day mortality, emergency department (ED) length of stay, time-interval to initial antibiotics after ED arrival, and any changes to the antibiotics regimen as results of the blood cultures. In subgroup analysis, we compared two groups (with or without the use of the prediction rule) after implementation period, using propensity score matching. Results: Following the implementation, the blood culture rate declined from 85.5% to 78.1% (P = 0.003) without significant changes in 30-day mortality and antibiotics regimen. The interval to initial antibiotics (231 min vs. 221 min, P = 0.362) and length of stay (1019 min vs. 954 min, P = 0.354) were not significantly changed. In subgroup analysis, the group that use the prediction rule showed 25 min faster antibiotics initiation (P = 0.002) and 48 min shorter length of stay (P = 0.007) than the group that did not use the rule. Conclusion: Implementation of the bacteremia prediction rule in CAP patients reduced the blood culture rate without affecting the 30-day mortality and antibiotics regimen.
[A]:
1 - purpose, 2 - purpose, 3 - purpose, 4 - purpose, 5 - purpose, 6 - purpose, 7 - method, 8 - method, 9 - method, 10 - method, 11 - method, 12 - method, 13 - method, 14 - finding, 15 - finding, 16 - finding, 17 - finding, 18 - finding