A hand hygiene intervention to decrease infections among children attending day care centers: design of a cluster randomized controlled trial

Handwashing among caregivers of young children in a protracted and complex refugee and immigration context: a mixed methods study on the Thai-Myanmar border

Introduction

Protracted refugee situations create complex contexts that present significant health risks for young children. Effective hand hygiene practices by caregivers can reduce respiratory infections and diarrhoeal disease, the two largest contributors to mortality among children between 1 month and 5 years of age. This study documented handwashing patterns and access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) infrastructure among caregivers of young children living along the Thai-Myanmar border, one of the world's most protracted and complex refugee and immigration contexts. It also examined the association between handwashing and socio-demographic variables and captured participants' explanations for when and how hands are washed. The study broadened the scope of previous research by also including the large number of caregivers living outside formal camps.

Methods

Caregivers of children attending 11 preschools in Tak province, Thailand participated in a mixed-methods cross-sectional study. Quantitative questionnaire data (n = 384) were supplemented by a thematic analysis of data from in-depth interviews (n = 9).

Results

Fewer than half the caregivers reported routinely washing their hands before preparing meals or after using the latrine/toilet. Fewer than one-in-five routinely used soap in these situations. Interviewees explained that handwashing was only necessary when a substance could be felt or seen, in which case wiping with a cloth or a rinsing with water were sufficient to clean hands. However, their explanations also suggested some potential avenues for culturally appropriate and feasible interventions to improve hand hygiene.

Conclusion

The results confirmed previous research on the multi-dimensional barriers to good hand hygiene in protracted refugee situations and other low-resource settings. Additional investment to overcome shortages in the infrastructure necessary to support good hand hygiene and creative means of drawing on and developing human capital will be necessary to realize the potential hand hygiene holds for reducing ill-health and mortality among young children living in these contexts.

Hand hygiene of kindergarten children-Understanding the effect of live feedback on handwashing behaviour, self-efficacy, and motivation of young children: Protocol for a multi-arm cluster randomized controlled trial

Early implementation of interventions at a young age fosters behaviour changes and helps to adopt behaviours that promote health. Digital technologies may help to promote the hand hygiene behaviour of children. However, there is a lack of digital feedback interventions focusing on the hand hygiene behaviour of preschool children in childhood education and care settings. This study protocol aims to describe a study that evaluates the effectiveness of a gamified live feedback intervention and explores underlying behavioural theories in achieving better hand hygiene behaviour of preschool children in early childhood education and care settings. This study will be a four-arm cluster randomized controlled trial with three phases and a twelve-month follow-up by country stratification. The sample size is 106 children of which one cluster will have a minimum number of 40 children. During the baseline phase, all groups will have automated monitoring systems installed. In the intervention phase, the control group will have no screen activity. The intervention groups will have feedback displays during the handwashing activity. Intervention A will receive instructions, and intervention B and C groups will receive instructions and a reward. In the post-intervention phase, all the groups will have no screen activity except intervention C which will receive instructions from the screen but no reward. The outcome measures will be hand hygiene behaviour, self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation. Outcome measures will be collected at baseline, intervention, and post-intervention phases and a 12-month follow-up. The data will be analysed with quantitative and qualitative methods. The findings of the planned study will provide whether this gamified live feedback intervention can be recommended to be used in educational settings to improve the hand hygiene behaviour of preschool children to promote health. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (registration number NCT05395988 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05395988?term=NCT05395988&draw=2&rank=1).

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.

Assessment on Hand Hygiene Knowledge and Practices Among Pre-school Children in Klang Valley

Background. Pre-school children are at a higher risk to acquire infectious diseases such as hand, foot and mouth disease due to their immature immune system. Good hand hygiene prevents transmission of infectious diseases. This study aimed to determine the knowledge and practices of hand hygiene among pre-schoolers. Methods. In this prospective, multi-center study, the pre-schools were selected according to the selection criteria. A questionnaire consisting of socio-demographics, knowledge and practices of hand hygiene were administered via face-to-face interview during the pre- and post-intervention period. A total of 435 pre-schoolers aged 5 and 6 years old from 2 pre-schools within Klang Valley, School P (test group) and School C (control group) were involved in this study. The test group was provided with comprehensive hand hygiene education including video on proper handwashing technique during the 2 months intervention period, whereas the control group did not receive any form of intervention. The data were statistically analyzed using descriptive analysis and independent t-test. Results. Majority of pre-schoolers gained knowledge of handwashing from their parents. However, only 63% demonstrated good handwashing technique. Test group were significantly better (P < 0.05) in handwashing technique and hand hygiene routine score. Conclusion. A comprehensive hand hygiene education program should include proper handwashing facilities, resources, and awareness of the care-givers in instilling and sustaining good hand hygiene behavior.

Rinse-free hand wash for reducing absenteeism among preschool and school children

BACKGROUND

Illness-related absenteeism is an important problem among preschool and school children for low-, middle- and high- income countries. Appropriate hand hygiene is one commonly investigated and implemented strategy to reduce the spread of illness and subsequently the number of days spent absent. Most hand hygiene strategies involve washing hands with soap and water, however this is associated with a number of factors that act as a barrier to its use, such as requiring running water, and the need to dry hands after cleaning. An alternative method involves washing hands using rinse-free hand wash. This technique has a number of benefits over traditional hand hygiene strategies and may prove to be beneficial in reducing illness-related absenteeism in preschool and school children.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the effectiveness of rinse-free hand washing for reducing absenteeism due to illness in preschool and school children compared to no hand washing, conventional hand washing with soap and water or other hand hygiene strategies. 2. To determine which rinse-free hand washing products are the most effective (if head-to-head comparisons exist), and what effect additional strategies in combination with rinse-free hand washing have on the outcomes of interest.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2020 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, 12 other databases and three clinical trial registries. We also reviewed the reference lists of included studies and made direct contact with lead authors of studies to collect additional information as required. No date or language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status, comparing rinse-free hand wash in any form (hand rub, hand sanitizer, gel, foam etc.) with conventional hand washing using soap and water, other hand hygiene programs (such as education alone), or no intervention. The population of interest was children aged between two and 18 years attending preschool (childcare, day care, kindergarten, etc.) or school (primary, secondary, elementary, etc.). Primary outcomes included child or student absenteeism for any reason, absenteeism due to any illness and adverse skin reactions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Following standard Cochrane methods, two review authors (out of ZM, CT, CL, CS, TB), independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted relevant data. Absences were extracted as the number of student days absent out of total days. This was sometimes reported with the raw numbers and other times as an incidence rate ratio (IRR), which we also extracted. For adverse event data, we calculated effect sizes as risk ratios (RRs) and present these with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for data analysis and followed the GRADE approach to establish certainty in the findings.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 19 studies with 30,747 participants. Most studies were conducted in the USA (eight studies), two were conducted in Spain, and one each in China, Colombia, Finland, France, Kenya, Bangladesh, New Zealand, Sweden, and Thailand. Six studies were conducted in preschools or day-care centres (children aged from birth to < five years), with the remaining 13 conducted in elementary or primary schools (children aged five to 14 years). The included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias in several domains, most-notably across the domains of performance and detection bias due to the difficulty to blind those delivering the intervention or those assessing the outcome. Additionally, every outcome of interest was graded as low or very low certainty of evidence, primarily due to high risk of bias, as well as imprecision of the effect estimates and inconsistency between pooled data. For the outcome of absenteeism for any reason, the pooled estimate for rinse-free hand washing was an IRR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.01; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), which indicates there may be little to no difference between groups. For absenteeism for any illness, the pooled IRR was 0.82 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.97; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence), which indicates that rinse-free hand washing may reduce absenteeism (13 days absent per 1000) compared to those in the 'no rinse-free' group (16 days absent per 1000). For the outcome of absenteeism for acute respiratory illness, the pooled IRR was 0.79 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence), which indicates that rinse-free hand washing may reduce absenteeism (33 days absent per 1000) compared to those in the 'no rinse-free' group (42 days absent per 1000). When evaluating absenteeism for acute gastrointestinal illness, the pooled estimate found an IRR of 0.79 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.85; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence), which indicates rinse-free hand washing may reduce absenteeism (six days absent per 1000) compared to those in the 'no rinse-free' group (eight days absent per 1000). There may be little to no difference between rinse-free hand washing and 'no rinse-free' group regarding adverse skin reactions with a RR of 1.03 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.32; 3 studies, 4365 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Broadly, compliance with the intervention appeared to range from moderate to high compliance (9 studies, 10,749 participants; very-low certainty evidence); narrativley, no authors reported substantial issues with compliance. Overall, most studies that included data on perception reported that teachers and students perceived rinse-free hand wash positively and were willing to continue its use (3 studies, 1229 participants; very-low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review may have identified a small yet potentially beneficial effect of rinse-free hand washing regimes on illness-related absenteeism. However, the certainty of the evidence that contributed to this conclusion was low or very low according to the GRADE approach and is therefore uncertain. Further research is required at all levels of schooling to evaluate rinse-free hand washing regimens in order to provide more conclusive, higher-certainty evidence regarding its impact. When considering the use of a rinse-free hand washing program in a local setting, there needs to be consideration of the current rates of illness-related absenteeism and whether the small beneficial effects seen here will translate into a meaningful reduction across their settings.

Effect of a simple intervention on hand hygiene related diseases in preschools in South Africa: research protocol for an intervention study

INTRODUCTION

Hand hygiene (HH) related illnesses such as diarrhoea and respiratory diseases, contribute to the burden of disease and are included in the top five causes of mortality in children under 5 years in South Africa. Children attending preschools are more susceptible to these infections due to the higher number of children in preschools. HH interventions have shown to reduce HH-related diseases by improving HH practices. In South Africa, there are no documented HH interventions or studies in children under 5 years. The purpose of the study is to determine whether an HH intervention can reduce HH-related diseases among 4-5-year-old preschool children and to improve HH practices in these children, their caregivers and their parents.

METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS

This is a protocol for a controlled intervention study to be conducted at preschools in Kempton Park, City of Ekurhuleni, Gauteng, South Africa. Preschools will be randomly distributed into control and experimental groups (n=70). The intervention includes interactive simulation learning, educational emails and education and poster reminders obtained from the WHO and the Global Handwashing Day website. Data collection, including the intervention, will take place during the calendar year as this coincides with the school year. Data will be analysed both preintervention and postintervention in the experimental group as well as between the experimental and control group. Data collected by means of questionnaires, observations, disease registers, hygiene inspections, semi-structured interviews and hand swabs will be analysed to determine these outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Permission has been obtained from the University of Johannesburg Ethics Committee and Ministerial Consent for Non-Therapeutic Research on Minors from the Department of Health National Ethics Research Council. Permissions for use of copyright protected materials has been obtained. Results of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, and feedback within relevant structures through conference proceedings.

A hand hygiene intervention to decrease hand, foot and mouth disease and absence due to sickness among kindergarteners in China: A cluster-randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of the "Clean Hands, Happy Life" intervention on the incidence of hand, food and mouth disease (HFMD) and on school absences due to sickness in kindergarten students.

METHODS

The intervention consisted of four hand hygiene (HH) promotion components and was evaluated in a cluster-randomized controlled trial among 8275 children and 18 kindergartens from May to October, 2015 in Shenzhen, China. We compared two intervention arms - received the intervention in kindergartens only and in both kindergartens and families, respectively - to the control arm in multilevel analyses.

RESULTS

During the follow-up, the incidence of HFMD in both intervention arms was significantly lower than in the control arm (IRR₁: 0.39, 95%CI: 0.26-0.59; IRR₂: 0.30, 95%CI: 0.19-0.49); the duration of absence due to sickness (in days) in both intervention arms was significantly shorter than in the control arm (β₁ = 0.58, 95%CI: 0.41-0.74; β₂ = 0.34, 95%CI: 0.17-0.50), controlling for the area type of kindergarten and grade level of children. Furthermore, during the follow-up we found that there were fewer episodes of absence due to respiratory, skin and eye infections (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our intervention is effective at reducing HFMD infections and absence due to sickness in children attending kindergartens in China.

Improving hand hygiene compliance in child daycare centres: a randomized controlled trial

Gastrointestinal and respiratory infections in children attending daycare centres (DCCs) are common and compliance with hand hygiene (HH) guidelines to prevent infections is generally low. An intervention was developed to increase HH compliance and reduce infections in DCCs. The objective of this paper was to evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention on HH compliance. The intervention was evaluated in a two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial in 71 DCCs in The Netherlands. Thirty-six DCCs received the intervention including: (1) HH products; (2) training about HH guidelines; (3) two team training sessions aimed at goal setting and formulating HH improvement activities; and (4) reminders and cues for action (posters/stickers). Intervention DCCs were compared to 35 control DCCs that continued usual practice. HH compliance of caregivers and children was observed at baseline and at 1, 3 and 6 months follow-up. Using multilevel logistic regression, odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained for the intervention effect. Of 795 caregivers, 5042 HH opportunities for caregivers and 5606 opportunities for supervising children's HH were observed. At 1 month follow-up caregivers' compliance in intervention DCCs was 66% vs. 43% in control DCCs (OR 6·33, 95% CI 3·71-10·80), and at 6 months 59% vs. 44% (OR 4·13, 95% CI 2·33-7·32). No effect of the intervention was found on supervising children's HH (36% vs. 32%; OR 0·64, 95% CI 0·18-2·33). In conclusion, HH compliance of caregivers increased due to the intervention, therefore dissemination of the intervention can be considered.

Effectiveness of hand hygiene interventions in reducing illness absence among children in educational settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to establish the effectiveness of handwashing in reducing absence and/or the spread of respiratory tract (RT) and/or gastrointestinal (GI) infection among school-aged children and/or staff in educational settings.

DESIGN

Randomised-controlled trials (RCTs).

SETTING

Schools and other settings with a formal educational component in any country.

PATIENTS

Children aged 3-11 years, and/or staff working with them.

INTERVENTION

Interventions with a hand hygiene component.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incidence of RT or GI infections or symptoms related to such infections; absenteeism; laboratory results of RT and/or GI infections.

RESULTS

Eighteen cluster RCTs were identified; 13 school-based, 5 in child day care facilities or preschools. Studies were heterogeneous and had significant quality issues including small numbers of clusters and participants and inadequate randomisation. Individual study results suggest interventions may reduce children's absence, RT infection incidence and symptoms, and laboratory confirmed influenza-like illness. Evidence of impact on GI infection or symptoms was equivocal.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies are generally not well executed or reported. Despite updating existing systematic reviews and identifying new studies, evidence of the effect of hand hygiene interventions on infection incidence in educational settings is mostly equivocal but they may decrease RT infection among children. These results update and add to knowledge about this crucial public health issue in key settings with a vulnerable population. More robust, well reported cluster RCTs which learn from existing studies, are required.

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.

A hand hygiene intervention to reduce infections in child daycare: a randomized controlled trial

Infections are common in children attending daycare centres (DCCs). We evaluated the effect of a hand hygiene (HH) intervention for caregivers on the incidence of gastrointestinal and respiratory infections in children. The intervention was evaluated in a two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial. Thirty-six DCCs received the intervention including HH products, training sessions, and posters/stickers. Thirty-five control DCCs continued usual practice. Incidence of episodes of diarrhoea and the common cold in children was monitored by parents during 6 months. Using multilevel Poisson regression, incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained. Diarrhoeal incidence was monitored in 545 children for 91 937 days. During follow-up, the incidence was 3·0 episodes per child-year in intervention DCCs vs. 3·4 in control DCCs (IRR 0·90, 95% CI 0·73–1·11). Incidence of the common cold was monitored in 541 children for 91 373 days. During follow-up, the incidence was 8·2 episodes per child-year in intervention DCCs vs. 7·4 in control DCCs (IRR 1·07, 95% CI 0·97–1·19). In this study, no evidence for an effect of the intervention was demonstrated on the incidence of episodes of diarrhoea and the common cold.