1
|
Ante-Testard PA, Rerolle F, Nguyen AT, Ashraf S, Parvez SM, Naser AM, Benmarhnia T, Rahman M, Luby SP, Benjamin-Chung J, Arnold BF. WASH interventions and child diarrhea at the interface of climate and socioeconomic position in Bangladesh. Nat Commun 2024; 15:1556. [PMID: 38378704 PMCID: PMC10879131 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-45624-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2023] [Accepted: 01/30/2024] [Indexed: 02/22/2024] Open
Abstract
Many diarrhea-causing pathogens are climate-sensitive, and populations with the lowest socioeconomic position (SEP) are often most vulnerable to climate-related transmission. Household Water, Sanitation, and Handwashing (WASH) interventions constitute one potential effective strategy to reduce child diarrhea, especially among low-income households. Capitalizing on a cluster randomized trial population (360 clusters, 4941 children with 8440 measurements) in rural Bangladesh, one of the world's most climate-sensitive regions, we show that improved WASH substantially reduces diarrhea risk with largest benefits among children with lowest SEP and during the monsoon season. We extrapolated trial results to rural Bangladesh regions using high-resolution geospatial layers to identify areas most likely to benefit. Scaling up a similar intervention could prevent an estimated 734 (95% CI 385, 1085) cases per 1000 children per month during the seasonal monsoon, with marked regional heterogeneities. Here, we show how to extend large-scale trials to inform WASH strategies among climate-sensitive and low-income populations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pearl Anne Ante-Testard
- Francis I. Proctor Foundation and Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
| | - Francois Rerolle
- Francis I. Proctor Foundation and Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
| | - Anna T Nguyen
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Sania Ashraf
- Environmental Health and WASH, Health System and Population Studies Division, icddr,b, Dhaka, 1212, Bangladesh
| | - Sarker Masud Parvez
- Environmental Health and WASH, Health System and Population Studies Division, icddr,b, Dhaka, 1212, Bangladesh
- Child Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland, South Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Abu Mohammed Naser
- Division of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA
| | - Tarik Benmarhnia
- Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
| | - Mahbubur Rahman
- Environmental Health and WASH, Health System and Population Studies Division, icddr,b, Dhaka, 1212, Bangladesh
| | - Stephen P Luby
- Division of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Jade Benjamin-Chung
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA
| | - Benjamin F Arnold
- Francis I. Proctor Foundation and Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Welch V, Dewidar O, Tanjong Ghogomu E, Abdisalam S, Al Ameer A, Barbeau VI, Brand K, Kebedom K, Benkhalti M, Kristjansson E, Madani MT, Antequera Martín AM, Mathew CM, McGowan J, McLeod W, Park HA, Petkovic J, Riddle A, Tugwell P, Petticrew M, Trawin J, Wells GA. How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 1:MR000028. [PMID: 35040487 PMCID: PMC8764740 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.mr000028.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Enhancing health equity is endorsed in the Sustainable Development Goals. The failure of systematic reviews to consider potential differences in effects across equity factors is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions. OBJECTIVES: To explore what methods systematic reviewers use to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following databases up to 26 February 2021: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Hein Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on 10 June 10 2021. We contacted authors and searched the reference lists of included studies to identify additional potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities. We define health inequalities as unfair and avoidable differences across socially stratifying factors that limit opportunities for health. We operationalised this by assessing studies which evaluated differences in health across any component of the PROGRESS-Plus acronym, which stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender or sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital. "Plus" stands for other factors associated with discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation or vulnerability such as personal characteristics (e.g. age, disability), relationships that limit opportunities for health (e.g. children in a household with parents who smoke) or environmental situations which provide limited control of opportunities for health (e.g. school food environment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-tested form. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 48,814 studies were identified and the titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. In this updated review, we identified an additional 124 methodological studies published in the 10 years since the first version of this review, which included 34 studies. Thus, 158 methodological studies met our criteria for inclusion. The methods used by these studies focused on evidence relevant to populations experiencing health inequity (108 out of 158 studies), assess subgroup analysis across PROGRESS-Plus (26 out of 158 studies), assess analysis of a gradient in effect across PROGRESS-Plus (2 out of 158 studies) or use a combination of subgroup analysis and focused approaches (20 out of 158 studies). The most common PROGRESS-Plus factors assessed were age (43 studies), socioeconomic status in 35 studies, low- and middle-income countries in 24 studies, gender or sex in 22 studies, race or ethnicity in 17 studies, and four studies assessed multiple factors across which health inequity may exist. Only 16 studies provided a definition of health inequity. Five methodological approaches to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (140 of 158 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (50 studies); 3) analytic approaches which assessed differential effects across one or more PROGRESS-Plus factors (16 studies); 4) applicability assessment (25 studies) and 5) stakeholder engagement (28 studies), which is a new finding in this update and examines the appraisal of whether relevant stakeholders with lived experience of health inequity were included in the design of systematic reviews or design and delivery of interventions. Reporting for both approaches (analytic and applicability) lacked transparency and was insufficiently detailed to enable the assessment of credibility. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is a need for improvement in conceptual clarity about the definition of health equity, describing sufficient detail about analytic approaches (including subgroup analyses) and transparent reporting of judgments required for applicability assessments in order to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vivian Welch
- Methods Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Omar Dewidar
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | - Kevin Brand
- Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Jessie McGowan
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | | | | | | | - Alison Riddle
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Marmora, Canada
| | - Peter Tugwell
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Mark Petticrew
- Department of Social & Environmental Health Research, Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | | | - George A Wells
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| |
Collapse
|