Sustained improvements in handwashing indicators more than 5 years after a cluster-randomised, community-based trial of handwashing promotion in Karachi, Pakistan

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.

Hand-washing promotion for preventing diarrhoea

BACKGROUND

Diarrhoea accounts for 1.8 million deaths in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One of the identified strategies to prevent diarrhoea is hand washing.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of hand-washing promotion interventions on diarrhoeal episodes in children and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP), and metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) on 8 January 2020, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Individually-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared the effects of hand-washing interventions on diarrhoea episodes in children and adults with no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We stratified the analyses for child day-care centres or schools, community, and hospital-based settings. Where appropriate, we pooled incidence rate ratios (IRRs) using the generic inverse variance method and a random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 RCTs: 13 trials from child day-care centres or schools in mainly high-income countries (54,471 participants), 15 community-based trials in LMICs (29,347 participants), and one hospital-based trial among people with AIDS in a high-income country (148 participants). All the trials and follow-up assessments were of short-term duration. Hand-washing promotion (education activities, sometimes with provision of soap) at child day-care facilities or schools prevent around one-third of diarrhoea episodes in high-income countries (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; 9 trials, 4664 participants, high-certainty evidence) and may prevent a similar proportion in LMICs, but only two trials from urban Egypt and Kenya have evaluated this (IRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; 2 trials, 45,380 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only four trials reported measures of behaviour change, and the methods of data collection were susceptible to bias. In one trial from the USA hand-washing behaviour was reported to improve; and in the trial from Kenya that provided free soap, hand washing did not increase, but soap use did (data not pooled; 3 trials, 1845 participants; low-certainty evidence). Hand-washing promotion among communities in LMICs probably prevents around one-quarter of diarrhoea episodes (IRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.81; 9 trials, 15,950 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, six of these nine trials were from Asian settings, with only one trial from South America and two trials from sub-Saharan Africa. In seven trials, soap was provided free alongside hand-washing education, and the overall average effect size was larger than in the two trials which did not provide soap (soap provided: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.75; 7 trials, 12,646 participants; education only: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; 2 trials, 3304 participants). There was increased hand washing at major prompts (before eating or cooking, after visiting the toilet, or cleaning the baby's bottom) and increased compliance with hand-hygiene procedure (behavioural outcome) in the intervention groups compared with the control in community trials (data not pooled: 4 trials, 3591 participants; high-certainty evidence). Hand-washing promotion for the one trial conducted in a hospital among a high-risk population showed significant reduction in mean episodes of diarrhoea (1.68 fewer) in the intervention group (mean difference -1.68, 95% CI -1.93 to -1.43; 1 trial, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Hand-washing frequency increased to seven times a day in the intervention group versus three times a day in the control arm in this hospital trial (1 trial, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found no trials evaluating the effects of hand-washing promotions on diarrhoea-related deaths or cost effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Hand-washing promotion probably reduces diarrhoea episodes in both child day-care centres in high-income countries and among communities living in LMICs by about 30%. The included trials do not provide evidence about the long-term impact of the interventions.

Nebuliser hygiene in cystic fibrosis: evidence-based recommendations

Nebulised therapies are extensively used in the daily therapeutic management of cystic fibrosis both for mucociliary clearance and for the management of chronic infections. Extensive developments have been made in relation to nebulised drug delivery mechanisms and drug formulations, and guidelines have been prepared that have addressed the appropriate use of such therapies. However, due to these developments, a plethora of nebuliser devices and drug chambers exist, and frequently, the limited guidance provided in relation to nebuliser hygiene is to follow manufacturers' instructions. Such instructions are inconsistent and at times confusing, translating to an increase in the burden associated with nebuliser maintenance. An evidence-based universal guideline relating to nebuliser care and hygiene is urgently required that is applicable to both at-home use and inpatient use. This article reviews the scientific literature in order to propose an evidence-based approach to nebuliser hygiene to ensure optimum drug delivery, and infection prevention and control.

Current nebuliser hygiene practice is varied and challenging at home and in hospital. This review of the scientific literature proposes an evidence-based approach to nebuliser hygiene to ensure optimum drug delivery and infection prevention and control.https://bit.ly/3b9jGee

Relationships between the weaning period and the introduction of complementary foods in the transmission of gastrointestinal parasitic infections in children in Honduras

PURPOSE

This study was to investigate weaning practices used by mothers when transitioning infants from breast milk to complementary foods and to determine the role these foods have in the transmission of gastrointestinal parasites.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

On average, of the 175 mothers extensively interviewed, 93% said they had breast-fed their infants. Approximately 20.8% of mothers had added some other liquid to their infant's diet at 3 months, while most mothers had added other liquids at 6 months (39.0%) and >6 months (32.1%). Some mothers expanded food offerings to infants before 3 months. The percentage of mothers who had added other liquids to their infants' diet was reported by age of the infant: as early as 1 day (2.5%), <1 week (1.9%), first month (3.1%), 3 months (20.8%), 6 months (39.0%), and >6 months (32.1%). These foods included fruit, vegetables, meat, and grains. The maximum age a child was found to be still breastfeeding was 13 years.

RESULTS

Forty percent of mothers involved in this survey reported that their children were diagnosed and/or treated for gastrointestinal parasitic infection. Routes of infection of protozoan and helminth parasites likely resulted from contaminated complementary foods and water given to infants while still breast-feeding or from contaminated foods after breast-feeding had been completed. Contaminated water is a likely source of protozoan parasites. Contaminated water was fed to infants, mixed with formula or complementary foods, or used to wash bottles for infant feeding. There was an absence of hand-washing by children and mothers before eating or while preparing foods.

CONCLUSION

The major source of soil-transmitted helminth infections was likely the result of unwashed or uncooked pureed fruit or vegetables used as complementary foods, unpasteurized animal milk, insanitary food storage, poor living conditions with exposed dirt floors, and exposure to roaming domestic animals.

The effect of community health worker-led education on women's health and treatment-seeking: A cluster randomised trial and nested process evaluation in Gujarat, India

Background

A community–based health insurance scheme operated by the Self–Employed Women’s Association in Gujarat, India reported that the leading reasons for inpatient hospitalisation claims by its members were diarrhoea, fever and hysterectomy – the latter at the average age of 37. This claims pattern raised concern regarding potentially unnecessary hospitalisation amongst low–income women.

Methods

A cluster randomised trial and mixed methods process evaluation were designed to evaluate whether and how a community health worker–led education intervention amongst insured and uninsured adult women could reduce insurance claims, as well as hospitalisation and morbidity, related to diarrhoea, fever and hysterectomy. The 18–month intervention consisted of health workers providing preventive care information to women in a group setting in 14 randomly selected clusters, while health workers continued with regular activities in 14 comparison clusters. Claims data were collected from an administrative database, and four household surveys were conducted amongst a cohort of 1934 randomly selected adult women.

Results

30% of insured women and 18% of uninsured women reported attending sessions. There was no evidence of an intervention effect on the primary outcome, insurance claims (risk ratio (RR) = 1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81, 1.30) or secondary outcomes amongst insured and uninsured women, hospitalisation (RR = 1.05; 95% CI 0.58, 1.90) and morbidity (RR = 1.09; 95% CI 0.87, 1.38) related to the three conditions. The process evaluation suggested that participants retained knowledge from the sessions, but barriers to behaviour change were not overcome.

Conclusions

We detected no evidence of an effect of this health worker–led intervention to decrease claims, hospitalisation and morbidity related to diarrhoea, fever and hysterectomy. Strategies that capitalise on health workers’ role in the community and knowledge, as well as those that address the social determinants of diarrhoea, fever and the frequency of hysterectomy – such as water and sanitation infrastructure and access to primary gynaecological care – emerged as areas to strengthen future interventions.

Effect of water quality, sanitation, hand washing, and nutritional interventions on child development in rural Bangladesh (WASH Benefits Bangladesh): a cluster-randomised controlled trial

Background

Poor nutrition and hygiene make children vulnerable to delays in growth and development. We aimed to assess the effects of water quality, sanitation, handwashing, and nutritional interventions individually or in combination on the cognitive, motor, and language development of children in rural Bangladesh.

Methods

In this cluster-randomised controlled trial, we enrolled pregnant women in their first or second trimester from rural villages of Gazipur, Kishoreganj, Mymensingh, and Tangail districts of central Bangladesh, with an average of eight women per cluster. Groups of eight geographically adjacent clusters were block-randomised, using a random number generator, into six intervention groups (all of which received weekly visits from a community health promoter for the first 6 months and every 2 weeks for the next 18 months) and a double-sized control group (no intervention or health promoter visit). The six intervention groups were: chlorinated drinking water; improved sanitation; handwashing with soap; combined water, sanitation, and handwashing; improved nutrition through counselling and provision of lipid-based nutrient supplements; and combined water, sanitation, handwashing, and nutrition. Here, we report on the prespecified secondary child development outcomes: gross motor milestone achievement assessed with the WHO module at age 1 year, and communication, gross motor, personal social, and combined scores measured by the Extended Ages and Stages Questionnaire (EASQ) at age 2 years. Masking of participants was not possible. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01590095.

Findings

Between May 31, 2012, and July 7, 2013, 5551 pregnant women residing in 720 clusters were enrolled. Index children of 928 (17%) enrolled women were lost to follow-up in year 1 and an additional 201 (3%) in year 2. 4757 children were assessed at 1 year and 4403 at 2 years. At year 1, compared with the control group, the combined water, sanitation, handwashing, and nutrition group had a higher rate of attaining the standing alone milestone (hazard ratio 1·19, 95% CI 1·01–1 ·40), and the nutrition group had a higher rate of attaining the walking alone milestone (1·32, 95% CI 1·07–1·62). The combined water, sanitation, handwashing, and nutrition group had a higher rate of attaining the walking alone milestone than those in the water, sanitation, and handwashing group (1·29, 1·01–1·65). At 2 years, we noted beneficial effects in the combined EASQ score in all intervention groups, with effect sizes smallest in the water treatment group (difference 0·15, 95% CI 0·04 to 0·26 vs control) and largest in the combined water, sanitation, handwashing, and nutrition treatment group (0·37, 0·27–0·46).

Interpretation

Improvements in water quality, handwashing, sanitation, or nutrition supported by intensive interpersonal communication, when delivered either individually or in combination, contributed to improvements in child development. A crucial next step is to establish whether similar effects can be achieved with reduced intensity of promoter contacts that could be supported in large-scale interventions.

Funding

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Influence of Contextual and Psychosocial Factors on Handwashing

Even though washing hands with soap is among the most effective measures to reduce the risk of infection, handwashing rates in infrastructure-restricted settings remain seriously low. Little is known about how context alone and in interaction with psychosocial factors influence hand hygiene behavior. The aim of this article was to explore how both contextual and psychosocial factors affect handwashing practices. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 660 caregivers of primary school children in rural Burundi. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that household wealth, the amount of water per person, and having a designated place for washing hands were contextual factors significantly predicting handwashing frequency, whereas the contextual factors, time spent collecting water and amount of money spent on soap, were not significant predictors. The contextual factors explained about 13% of the variance of reported handwashing frequency. The addition of the psychosocial factors to the regression model resulted in a significant 41% increase of explained variation in handwashing frequency. In this final model, the amount of water was the only contextual factor that remained a significant predictor. The most important predictors were a belief of self-efficacy, planning how, when, and where to wash hands, and always remembering to do so. The findings suggest that contextual constraints might be perceived rather than actual barriers and highlight the role of psychosocial factors in understanding hygiene behaviors.

Hand washing promotion for preventing diarrhoea

BACKGROUND

Diarrhoea accounts for 1.8 million deaths in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One of the identified strategies to prevent diarrhoea is hand washing.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of hand washing promotion interventions on diarrhoeal episodes in children and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (27 May 2015); CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 5); MEDLINE (1966 to 27 May 2015); EMBASE (1974 to 27 May 2015); LILACS (1982 to 27 May 2015); PsycINFO (1967 to 27 May 2015); Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index (1981 to 27 May 2015); ERIC (1966 to 27 May 2015); SPECTR (2000 to 27 May 2015); Bibliomap (1990 to 27 May 2015); RoRe, The Grey Literature (2002 to 27 May 2015); World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), and reference lists of articles up to 27 May 2015. We also contacted researchers and organizations in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Individually randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared the effects of hand washing interventions on diarrhoea episodes in children and adults with no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We stratified the analyses for child day-care centres or schools, community, and hospital-based settings. Where appropriate, incidence rate ratios (IRR) were pooled using the generic inverse variance method and random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 RCTs: 12 trials from child day-care centres or schools in mainly high-income countries (54,006 participants), nine community-based trials in LMICs (15,303 participants), and one hospital-based trial among people with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) (148 participants).Hand washing promotion (education activities, sometimes with provision of soap) at child day-care facilities or schools prevents around one-third of diarrhoea episodes in high income countries (rate ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; nine trials, 4664 participants, high quality evidence), and may prevent a similar proportion in LMICs but only two trials from urban Egypt and Kenya have evaluated this (rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; two trials, 45,380 participants, low quality evidence). Only three trials reported measures of behaviour change and the methods of data collection were susceptible to bias. In one trial from the USA hand washing behaviour was reported to improve; and in the trial from Kenya that provided free soap, hand washing did not increase, but soap use did (data not pooled; three trials, 1845 participants, low quality evidence).Hand washing promotion among communities in LMICs probably prevents around one-quarter of diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.83; eight trials, 14,726 participants, moderate quality evidence). However, six of these eight trials were from Asian settings, with only single trials from South America and sub-Saharan Africa. In six trials, soap was provided free alongside hand washing education, and the overall average effect size was larger than in the two trials which did not provide soap (soap provided: rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78; six trials, 11,422 participants; education only: rate ratio: 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; two trials, 3304 participants). There was increased hand washing at major prompts (before eating/cooking, after visiting the toilet or cleaning the baby's bottom), and increased compliance to hand hygiene procedure (behavioural outcome) in the intervention groups than the control in community trials (data not pooled: three trials, 3490 participants, high quality evidence).Hand washing promotion for the one trial conducted in a hospital among high-risk population showed significant reduction in mean episodes of diarrhoea (1.68 fewer) in the intervention group (Mean difference 1.68, 95% CI 1.93 to 1.43; one trial, 148 participants, moderate quality evidence). There was increase in hand washing frequency, seven times per day in the intervention group versus three times in the control in this hospital trial (one trial, 148 participants, moderate quality evidence).We found no trials evaluating or reporting the effects of hand washing promotions on diarrhoea-related deaths, all-cause-under five mortality, or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Hand washing promotion probably reduces diarrhoea episodes in both child day-care centres in high-income countries and among communities living in LMICs by about 30%. However, less is known about how to help people maintain hand washing habits in the longer term.

Environmental factors and WASH practices in the perinatal period in Cambodia: implications for newborn health

Infection contributes to a significant proportion of neonatal death and disability worldwide, with the major burden occurring in the first week of life. Environmental conditions and gaps in water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) practices may contribute to the risk of infection, particularly in settings where health centers are expanding to meet the growing demand for skilled care at birth and homes do not have adequate access to water and sanitation. A qualitative approach was used to understand the environmental context for infection prevention and control (IPC) and WASH associated behaviors in health centers where women give birth, and in homes of newborns, in a rural Cambodian province. Structured observations and focus group discussions revealed important gaps in optimal practices, and both structural and social barriers to maintaining IPC during delivery and post-partum. Solutions are available to address the issues identified, and tackling these could result in marked environmental improvement for quality of care and neonatal outcomes. Water, sanitation and hygiene in home and health center environments are likely to be important contributors to health and should be addressed in strategies to improve neonatal survival.

Recent advances in understanding the long-term sequelae of childhood infectious diarrhea

Worldwide, early childhood infectious diarrhea continues to be a significant concern. Diarrheal illness affects the world's youngest and most vulnerable citizens disproportionately. Estimates are that over 70 % of deaths from diarrhea occur in people younger than 24 months of age. Diarrhea and environmental enteropathy have been associated with growth failure and stunting. In addition, the burden of enteric disease also leads to cognitive and academic losses, thus resulting in loss of human capital and economic productivity. While considerable progress has been made on preventing and treating childhood diarrheal illness, the mortality and morbidity still remain unacceptably high. This paper reviews recent (mainly from 2013) publications surrounding the global burden of childhood diarrhea and the implications for long-term sequelae.