Protocol for a cluster randomised stepped wedge trial assessing the impact of a community-level hygiene intervention and a water intervention using riverbank filtration technology on diarrhoeal prevalence in India

Verbal autopsy to assess causes of mortality among the economically productive age group in the tribal region of Melghat, central India

Background & Objectives

Verbal autopsy (VA) is the systematic and retrospective inquiry (from relatives) about the symptoms of an illness prior to death. In tribal India, 67-75 per cent of deaths occur at home with an unknown cause of death (CoD). Hence, the aim of this study was to determine the CoD in the 16-60 yr age group utilizing VA.

Methods

A prospective, community based longitudinal study was conducted in 32 tribal villages in the Melghat region of Maharashtra, between 2004 and 2020. Number of deaths and VAs in 16-60 yr age group were collected by village health workers (VHWs) and supervisors, verified by five different persons (internal-external) and cross-checked by three VA interpretation trained physicians. A modified version of WHO VA was used. Cause-specific mortality fractions were calculated.

Results

Of the 1011 deaths recorded, mortality in males was significantly higher than females (P<0.001). A total of 763 VAs were conducted which revealed that tuberculosis was the leading CoD, followed by jaundice, heart diseases, diarrhoea, central nervous system infections and suicide. Suicides were significantly more common among males than in females (P=0.046). Significantly, more deaths occurred during the monsoon (P=0.002), especially diarrhoeal deaths (P=0.024).

Interpretation & conclusions

The findings of this study suggest that, in Indian tribal areas, infectious diseases are the leading causes of morbidity and one of the major causes of deaths in economically productive age group. Intensified VHW-mediated interventions are required to reduce the premature deaths.

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.

A Stepped Wedge Cluster-Randomized Trial Assessing the Impact of a Riverbank Filtration Intervention to Improve Access to Safe Water on Health in Rural India

Sustainable and low-cost methods for delivery of safe drinking water in resource-limited settings remain suboptimal, which contributes to global diarrhea morbidity. We aimed to assess whether delivery of riverbank filtration-treated water to newly installed water storage tanks (improved quality and access, intervention condition) reduced reported diarrhea in comparison to delivery of unfiltered river water (improved access alone, control condition) in rural Indian villages. We used a stepped wedge cluster-randomized trial (SW-CRT) design involving four clusters (villages). Selection criteria included village size, proximity to a river, and lack of existing or planned community-level safe water sources. All adults and children were eligible for enrollment. All villages started in the control condition and were sequentially randomized to receive the intervention at 3-month intervals. Our primary outcome was 7-day-period prevalence of self- or caregiver-reported diarrhea, measured at 3-month intervals (five time points). Analysis was by intention to treat. Because blinding was not possible, we incorporated questions about symptoms unrelated to water consumption to check response validity (negative control symptoms). We measured outcomes in 2,222 households (9,836 participants). We did not find a measurable reduction in diarrhea post-intervention (RR: 0.98 [95% CI: 0.24-4.09]); possible explanations include low intervention uptake, availability of other safe water sources, low baseline diarrheal prevalence, and reporting fatigue. Our study highlights both the difficulties in evaluating the impact of real-world interventions and the potential for an optimized SW-CRT design to address budgetary, funding, and logistical constraints inherent in such evaluations.

Household Water Storage Management, Hygiene Practices, and Associated Drinking Water Quality in Rural India

Household drinking water storage is commonly practiced in rural India. Fecal contamination may be introduced at the water source, during collection, storage, or access. Within a trial of a community-level water supply intervention, we conducted five quarterly household-level surveys to collect information about water, sanitation, and hygiene practices in rural India. In a random subsample of households, we tested stored drinking water samples for Escherichia coli, concurrently observing storage and access practices. We conducted 9961 surveys and collected 3296 stored water samples. Stored water samples were frequently contaminated with E. coli (69%), and E. coli levels were the highest during the wet season. Most households contributing two or more drinking water samples had detectable E. coli in some (47%) or all (44%) samples. Predictors of stored water contamination with E. coli included consumption of river water and open defecation; consumption of reverse osmosis-treated water and safe water access practices appeared to be protective. Until households can be reached with on-premises continuous safe water supplies, suboptimal household water storage practices are likely to continue. Improvements to source water quality alone are unlikely to prevent exposure to contaminated drinking water unless attention is also given to improving household water storage, access, and sanitation practices.

Feasibility of an Electronic Health Tool to Promote Physical Activity in Primary Care: Pilot Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Physical inactivity is associated with increased health risks. Primary care providers (PCPs) are well positioned to support increased physical activity (PA) levels through screening and provision of PA prescriptions. However, PCP counseling on PA is not common.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the feasibility of implementing an electronic health (eHealth) tool to support PA counseling by PCPs and estimate intervention effectiveness on patients’ PA levels.

Methods

A pragmatic pilot study was conducted using a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design. The study was conducted at a single primary care clinic, with 4 pre-existing PCP teams. Adult patients who had a periodic health review (PHR) scheduled during the study period were invited to participate. The eHealth tool involved an electronic survey sent to participants before their PHR via an email or a tablet; data were used to automatically produce tailored resources and a PA prescription in the electronic medical record of participants in the intervention arm. Participants assigned to the control arm received usual care from their PCP. Feasibility was assessed by the proportion of completed surveys and patient-reported acceptability and fidelity measures. The primary effectiveness outcome was patient-reported PA at 4 months post-PHR, measured as metabolic equivalent of task (MET) minutes per week. Secondary outcomes assessed determinants of PA, including self-efficacy and intention to change based on the Health Action Process Approach behavior change theory.

Results

A total of 1028 patients receiving care from 34 PCPs were invited to participate and 530 (51.55%) consented (intervention [n=296] and control [n=234]). Of the participants who completed a process evaluation, almost half (88/178, 49.4%) stated they received a PA prescription, with only 42 receiving the full intervention including tailored resources from their PCP. A cluster-level linear regression analysis yielded a non–statistically significant positive difference in MET-minutes reported per week at follow-up between intervention and control conditions (mean difference 1027; 95% CI −155 to 2209; P=.09). No statistically significant differences were observed for secondary outcomes.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that it is feasible to build an eHealth tool that screens and provides tailored resources for PA in a primary care setting but suboptimal intervention fidelity suggests greater work must be done to address PCP barriers to resource distribution. Participant responses to the primary effectiveness outcome (MET-minutes) were highly variable, reflecting a need for more robust measures of PA in future trials to address limitations in patient-reported data.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03181295; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03181295

Barriers and Enablers to Intervention Uptake and Health Reporting in a Water Intervention Trial in Rural India: A Qualitative Explanatory Study

Consumption of unsafe drinking water contributes to the global disease burden, necessitating identification and implementation of effective, acceptable, and sustainable water interventions in resource-limited settings. In a quantitative stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial of a community-based water intervention in rural India, we identified low rates of intervention uptake and reported diarrhea. To better understand and explain these findings, we performed a qualitative study examining barriers and enablers to intervention uptake and health reporting using the COM-B model, where capabilities, opportunities, and motivators interact to generate behavior. We conducted 20 focus groups and one semi-structured interview with participants and four focus groups with data collectors. Multifactorial barriers to intervention uptake included distorted perceptions of water-related health effects, implementation issues that reduced treated water availability; convenience of, and preference for, alternative drinking water sources; delivery of water to plastic storage tanks (perceived as affecting water quality and taste); and resistance to change. Enablers included knowledge of water-related health risks, proximity to tanks, and social opportunity. Barriers to health reporting included variability in interpretation of illness, suspicion regarding the consequences of reporting disease, weariness with repeated questions, and perceived inaction on health data already provided; low survey implementation fidelity was also important. Enablers included surveyor initiatives to encourage reporting and a sense of social responsibility. This qualitative explanatory study allowed better understanding of our quantitative results. It also identified obstacles and facilitators to implementing and evaluating community water interventions, providing insight on how to achieve better intervention uptake and health reporting in future studies.

Implementation science in resource-poor countries and communities

Background

Implementation science in resource-poor countries and communities is arguably more important than implementation science in resource-rich settings, because resource poverty requires novel solutions to ensure that research results are translated into routine practice and benefit the largest possible number of people.

Methods

We reviewed the role of resources in the extant implementation science frameworks and literature. We analyzed opportunities for implementation science in resource-poor countries and communities, as well as threats to the realization of these opportunities.

Results

Many of the frameworks that provide theoretical guidance for implementation science view resources as contextual factors that are important to (i) predict the feasibility of implementation of research results in routine practice, (ii) explain implementation success and failure, (iii) adapt novel evidence-based practices to local constraints, and (iv) design the implementation process to account for local constraints. Implementation science for resource-poor settings shifts this view from “resources as context” to “resources as primary research object.” We find a growing body of implementation research aiming to discover and test novel approaches to generate resources for the delivery of evidence-based practice in routine care, including approaches to create higher-skilled health workers—through tele-education and telemedicine, freeing up higher-skilled health workers—through task-shifting and new technologies and models of care, and increasing laboratory capacity through new technologies and the availability of medicines through supply chain innovations. In contrast, only few studies have investigated approaches to change the behavior and utilization of healthcare resources in resource-poor settings. We identify three specific opportunities for implementation science in resource-poor settings. First, intervention and methods innovations thrive under constraints. Second, reverse innovation transferring novel approaches from resource-poor to research-rich settings will gain in importance. Third, policy makers in resource-poor countries tend to be open for close collaboration with scientists in implementation research projects aimed at informing national and local policy.

Conclusions

Implementation science in resource-poor countries and communities offers important opportunities for future discoveries and reverse innovation. To harness this potential, funders need to strongly support research projects in resource-poor settings, as well as the training of the next generation of implementation scientists working on new ways to create healthcare resources where they lack most and to ensure that those resources are utilized to deliver care that is based on the latest research results.