Purification of household water using a novel mixture reduces diarrhoeal disease in Matlab, Bangladesh

Interventions promoting uptake of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) technologies in low- and middle-income countries: An evidence and gap map of effectiveness studies

Background

Lack of access to and use of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) cause 1.6 million deaths every year, of which 1.2 million are due to gastrointestinal illnesses like diarrhoea and acute respiratory infections like pneumonia. Poor WASH access and use also diminish nutrition and educational attainment, and cause danger and stress for vulnerable populations, especially for women and girls. The hardest hit regions are sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 calls for the end of open defecation, and universal access to safely managed water and sanitation facilities, and basic hand hygiene, by 2030. WASH access and use also underpin progress in other areas such as SDG1 poverty targets, SDG3 health and SDG4 education targets. Meeting the SDG equity agenda to "leave none behind" will require WASH providers prioritise the hardest to reach including those living remotely and people who are disadvantaged.

Objectives

Decision makers need access to high-quality evidence on what works in WASH promotion in different contexts, and for different groups of people, to reach the most disadvantaged populations and thereby achieve universal targets. The WASH evidence map is envisioned as a tool for commissioners and researchers to identify existing studies to fill synthesis gaps, as well as helping to prioritise new studies where there are gaps in knowledge. It also supports policymakers and practitioners to navigate the evidence base, including presenting critically appraised findings from existing systematic reviews.

Methods

This evidence map presents impact evaluations and systematic reviews from the WASH sector, organised according to the types of intervention mechanisms, WASH technologies promoted, and outcomes measured. It is based on a framework of intervention mechanisms (e.g., behaviour change triggering or microloans) and outcomes along the causal pathway, specifically behavioural outcomes (e.g., handwashing and food hygiene practices), ill-health outcomes (e.g., diarrhoeal morbidity and mortality), nutrition and socioeconomic outcomes (e.g., school absenteeism and household income). The map also provides filters to examine the evidence for a particular WASH technology (e.g., latrines), place of use (e.g., home, school or health facility), location (e.g., global region, country, rural and urban) and group (e.g., people living with disability). Systematic searches for published and unpublished literature and trial registries were conducted of studies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Searches were conducted in March 2018, and searches for completed trials were done in May 2020. Coding of information for the map was done by two authors working independently. Impact evaluations were critically appraised according to methods of conduct and reporting. Systematic reviews were critically appraised using a new approach to assess theory-based, mixed-methods evidence synthesis.

Results

There has been an enormous growth in impact evaluations and systematic reviews of WASH interventions since the International Year of Sanitation, 2008. There are now at least 367 completed or ongoing rigorous impact evaluations in LMICs, nearly three-quarters of which have been conducted since 2008, plus 43 systematic reviews. Studies have been done in 83 LMICs, with a high concentration in Bangladesh, India, and Kenya. WASH sector programming has increasingly shifted in focus from what technology to supply (e.g., a handwashing station or child's potty), to the best way in which to do so to promote demand. Research also covers a broader set of intervention mechanisms. For example, there has been increased interest in behaviour change communication using psychosocial "triggering", such as social marketing and community-led total sanitation. These studies report primarily on behavioural outcomes. With the advent of large-scale funding, in particular by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, there has been a substantial increase in the number of studies on sanitation technologies, particularly latrines. Sustaining behaviour is fundamental for sustaining health and other quality of life improvements. However, few studies have been done of intervention mechanisms for, or measuring outcomes on sustained adoption of latrines to stop open defaecation. There has also been some increase in the number of studies looking at outcomes and interventions that disproportionately affect women and girls, who quite literally carry most of the burden of poor water and sanitation access. However, most studies do not report sex disaggregated outcomes, let alone integrate gender analysis into their framework. Other vulnerable populations are even less addressed; no studies eligible for inclusion in the map were done of interventions targeting, or reporting on outcomes for, people living with disabilities. We were only able to find a single controlled evaluation of WASH interventions in a health care facility, in spite of the importance of WASH in health facilities in global policy debates. The quality of impact evaluations has improved, such as the use of controlled designs as standard, attention to addressing reporting biases, and adequate cluster sample size. However, there remain important concerns about quality of reporting. The quality and usefulness of systematic reviews for policy is also improving, which draw clearer distinctions between intervention mechanisms and synthesise the evidence on outcomes along the causal pathway. Adopting mixed-methods approaches also provides information for programmes on barriers and enablers affecting implementation.

Conclusion

Ensuring everyone has access to appropriate water, sanitation, and hygiene facilities is one of the most fundamental of challenges for poverty elimination. Researchers and funders need to consider carefully where there is the need for new primary evidence, and new syntheses of that evidence. This study suggests the following priority areas:Impact evaluations incorporating understudied outcomes, such as sustainability and slippage, of WASH provision in understudied places of use, such as health care facilities, and of interventions targeting, or presenting disaggregated data for, vulnerable populations, particularly over the life-course and for people living with a disability;Improved reporting in impact evaluations, including presentation of participant flow diagrams; andSynthesis studies and updates in areas with sufficient existing and planned impact evaluations, such as for diarrhoea mortality, ARIs, WASH in schools and decentralisation. These studies will preferably be conducted as mixed-methods systematic reviews that are able to answer questions about programme targeting, implementation, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and compare alternative intervention mechanisms to achieve and sustain outcomes in particular contexts, preferably using network meta-analysis.

Narrative Review of Primary Preventive Interventions against Water-Borne Diseases: Scientific Evidence of Health-EDRM in Contexts with Inadequate Safe Drinking Water

Waterborne diseases account for 1.5 million deaths a year globally, particularly affecting children in low-income households in subtropical areas. It is one of the most enduring and economically devastating biological hazards in our society today. The World Health Organization Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management (health-EDRM) Framework highlights the importance of primary prevention against biological hazards across all levels of society. The framework encourages multi-sectoral coordination and lessons sharing for community risk resilience. A narrative review, conducted in March 2021, identified 88 English-language articles published between January 2000 and March 2021 examining water, sanitation, and hygiene primary prevention interventions against waterborne diseases in resource-poor settings. The literature identified eight main interventions implemented at personal, household and community levels. The strength of evidence, the enabling factors, barriers, co-benefits, and alternative measures were reviewed for each intervention. There is an array of evidence available across each intervention, with strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of water treatment and safe household water storage. Studies show that at personal and household levels, interventions are effective when applied together. Furthermore, water and waste management will have a compounding impact on vector-borne diseases. Mitigation against waterborne diseases require coordinated, multi-sectoral governance, such as building sanitation infrastructure and streamlined waste management. The review showed research gaps relating to evidence-based alternative interventions for resource-poor settings and showed discrepancies in definitions of various interventions amongst research institutions, creating challenges in the direct comparison of results across studies.

Interventions to improve water quality for preventing diarrhoea

BACKGROUND

Diarrhoea is a major cause of death and disease, especially among young children in low-income countries. In these settings, many infectious agents associated with diarrhoea are spread through water contaminated with faeces.In remote and low-income settings, source-based water quality improvement includes providing protected groundwater (springs, wells, and bore holes), or harvested rainwater as an alternative to surface sources (rivers and lakes). Point-of-use water quality improvement interventions include boiling, chlorination, flocculation, filtration, or solar disinfection, mainly conducted at home.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions to improve water quality for preventing diarrhoea.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (11 November 2014), CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library, 7 November 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to 10 November 2014), EMBASE (1974 to 10 November 2014), and LILACS (1982 to 7 November 2014). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, contacted researchers and organizations working in the field, and checked references from identified studies through 11 November 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and controlled before-and-after studies (CBA) comparing interventions aimed at improving the microbiological quality of drinking water with no intervention in children and adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used meta-analyses to estimate pooled measures of effect, where appropriate, and investigated potential sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-five cluster-RCTs, two quasi-RCTs, and eight CBA studies, including over 84,000 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Most included studies were conducted in low- or middle-income countries (LMICs) (50 studies) with unimproved water sources (30 studies) and unimproved or unclear sanitation (34 studies). The primary outcome in most studies was self-reported diarrhoea, which is at high risk of bias due to the lack of blinding in over 80% of the included studies. Source-based water quality improvementsThere is currently insufficient evidence to know if source-based improvements such as protected wells, communal tap stands, or chlorination/filtration of community sources consistently reduce diarrhoea (one cluster-RCT, five CBA studies, very low quality evidence). We found no studies evaluating reliable piped-in water supplies delivered to households. Point-of-use water quality interventionsOn average, distributing water disinfection products for use at the household level may reduce diarrhoea by around one quarter (Home chlorination products: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.91; 14 trials, 30,746 participants, low quality evidence; flocculation and disinfection sachets: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82, four trials, 11,788 participants, moderate quality evidence). However, there was substantial heterogeneity in the size of the effect estimates between individual studies.Point-of-use filtration systems probably reduce diarrhoea by around a half (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.59, 18 trials, 15,582 participants, moderate quality evidence). Important reductions in diarrhoea episodes were shown with ceramic filters, biosand systems and LifeStraw® filters; (Ceramic: RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.53; eight trials, 5763 participants, moderate quality evidence; Biosand: RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.57; four trials, 5504 participants, moderate quality evidence; LifeStraw®: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.93; three trials, 3259 participants, low quality evidence). Plumbed in filters have only been evaluated in high-income settings (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.94, three trials, 1056 participants, fixed effects model).In low-income settings, solar water disinfection (SODIS) by distribution of plastic bottles with instructions to leave filled bottles in direct sunlight for at least six hours before drinking probably reduces diarrhoea by around a third (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.94; four trials, 3460 participants, moderate quality evidence).In subgroup analyses, larger effects were seen in trials with higher adherence, and trials that provided a safe storage container. In most cases, the reduction in diarrhoea shown in the studies was evident in settings with improved and unimproved water sources and sanitation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that address the microbial contamination of water at the point-of-use may be important interim measures to improve drinking water quality until homes can be reached with safe, reliable, piped-in water connections. The average estimates of effect for each individual point-of-use intervention generally show important effects. Comparisons between these estimates do not provide evidence of superiority of one intervention over another, as such comparisons are confounded by the study setting, design, and population.Further studies assessing the effects of household connections and chlorination at the point of delivery will help improve our knowledge base. As evidence suggests effectiveness improves with adherence, studies assessing programmatic approaches to optimising coverage and long-term utilization of these interventions among vulnerable populations could also help strategies to improve health outcomes.

Household effectiveness vs. laboratory efficacy of point-of-use chlorination

Treatment of water at the household level offers a promising approach to combat the global burden of diarrheal diseases. In particular, chlorination of drinking water has been a widely promoted strategy due to persistence of residual chlorine after initial treatment. However, the degree to which chlorination can reduce microbial levels in a controlled setting (efficacy) or in a household setting (effectiveness) can vary as a function of chlorine characteristics, source water characteristics, and household conditions. To gain more understanding of these factors, we carried out an observational study within households in rural communities of northern coastal Ecuador. We found that the efficacy of chlorine treatment under controlled conditions was significantly better than its household effectiveness when evaluated both by ability to meet microbiological safety standards and by log reductions. Water treated with chlorine achieved levels of microbial contamination considered safe for human consumption after 24 h of storage in the household only 39-51% of the time, depending on chlorine treatment regimen. Chlorine treatment would not be considered protective against diarrheal disease according to WHO log reduction standards. Factors that explain the observed compromised effectiveness include: source water turbidity, source water baseline contamination levels, and in-home contamination. Water in 38% of the households that had low turbidity source water (<10 NTU) met the safe water standard as compared with only 17% of the households that had high turbidity source water (>10 NTU). A 10 MPN/100 mL increase in baseline Escherichia coli levels was associated with a 2.2% increase in failure to meet the E. coli standard. Higher mean microbial contamination levels were seen in 54% of household samples in comparison to their matched controls, which is likely the result of in-home contamination during storage. Container characteristics (size of the container mouth) did not influence chlorine effectiveness. We found no significant differences between chlorine treatment regimens in ability to meet the safe water standards or in overall log reductions, although chlorine dosage did modify the effect of source conditions. These results underscore the importance of measuring both source water and household conditions to determine appropriate chlorine levels, as well as to evaluate the appropriateness of chlorine treatment and other point-of-use water quality improvement interventions.

Reducing the health effect of natural hazards in Bangladesh

Bangladesh, with a population of 151 million people, is a country that is particularly prone to natural disasters: 26% of the population are affected by cyclones and 70% live in flood-prone regions. Mortality and morbidity from these events have fallen substantially in the past 50 years, partly because of improvements in disaster management. Thousands of cyclone shelters have been built and government and civil society have mobilised strategies to provide early warning and respond quickly. Increasingly, flood and cyclone interventions have leveraged community resilience, and general activities for poverty reduction have integrated disaster management. Furthermore, overall population health has improved greatly on the basis of successful public health activities, which has helped to mitigate the effect of natural disasters. Challenges to the maintenance and reduction of the effect of cyclones and floods include rapid urbanisation and the growing effect of global warming. Although the effects of earthquakes are unknown, some efforts to prepare for this type of event are underway.