Design, Intervention Fidelity, and Behavioral Outcomes of a School-Based Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Cluster-Randomized Trial in Laos

The state of reporting context and implementation in peer-reviewed evaluations of water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

To accurately assess evidence from environmental and public health field trials, context and implementation details of the intervention must be weighed with trial results; yet these details are under and inconsistently reported for water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), limiting the external validity of the evidence.

METHODS

To quantify the level of reporting of context and implementation in WASH evaluations, we conducted a scoping review of the 40 most cited evaluations of WASH interventions published in the last 10 years (2012-2022). We applied criteria derived from a review of existing reporting guidance from other sectors including healthcare and implementation science. We subsequently reviewed main articles, supplements, protocols, and other associated resources to assess thoroughness of context and implementation reporting.

RESULTS

Of the final 25 reporting items we searched for, four-intervention name, approach, location, and temporality-were reported by all studies. Five items-theory, implementer qualifications, dose intensity, targeting, and measured fidelity-were not reported in over a third of reviewed articles. Only two studies (5%) reported all items in our checklist. Only 74% of items were found in the main article, while the rest were found in separate papers (7%) or not at all (19%).

DISCUSSION

Inconsistent reporting of WASH implementation illustrates a major challenge in the sector. It is difficult to know what interventions are actually being evaluated and how to compare evaluation results. This inconsistent and incomplete implementation reporting limits the ability of programmers and policy makers to apply the available evidence to their contexts. Standardized reporting guidelines would improve the application of the evidence for WASH field evaluations.

School and community driven dengue vector control and monitoring in Myanmar: Study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

Background

Dengue is the most common and widespread mosquito-borne arboviral disease globally estimated to cause >390 million infections and >20,000 deaths annually. There are no effective preventive drugs and the newly introduced vaccines are not yet available. Control of dengue transmission still relies primarily on mosquito vector control. Although most vector control methods currently used by national dengue control programs may temporarily reduce mosquito populations, there is little evidence that they affect transmission. There is an urgent need for innovative, participatory, effective, and locally adapted approaches for sustainable vector control and monitoring in which students can be particularly relevant contributors and to demonstrate a clear link between vector reduction and dengue transmission reduction, using tools that are inexpensive and easy to use by local communities in a sustainable manner.

Methods

Here we describe a cluster randomized controlled trial to be conducted in 46 school catchment areas in two townships in Yangon, Myanmar. The outcome measures are dengue cases confirmed by rapid diagnostic test in the townships, dengue incidence in schools, entomological indices, knowledge, attitudes and practice, behavior, and engagement.

Conclusions

The trial involves middle school students that positions them to become actors in dengue knowledge transfer to their communities and take a leadership role in the delivery of vector control interventions and monitoring methods. Following this rationale, we believe that students can become change agents of decentralized vector surveillance and sustainable disease control in line with recent new paradigms in integrated and participatory vector surveillance and control. This provides an opportunity to operationalize transdisciplinary research towards sustainable health development. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and political instability in Myanmar the project has been terminated by the donor, but the protocol will be helpful for potential future implementation of the project in Myanmar and/or elsewhere.Registration: This trial was registered in the ISRCTN Registry on 31 May 2022 ( https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN78254298).

Nongovernmental Organization Practitioners' Perspectives on the Challenges and Solutions to Changing Handwashing Behavior in Older Children: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Increasing handwashing with soap (HWWS) among older children (aged 5-14 years) can achieve a substantial public health impact. However, HWWS interventions targeting older children have had mixed success. Recent research has attempted to quantitatively identify effective intervention techniques; however, success is likely also influenced by the wider context of implementation. We explore nongovernmental organization (NGO) practitioners' perspectives on the challenges and solutions to HWWS interventions targeting older children to enhance understanding of what is required, beyond intervention content, for them to be effective.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews in April-November 2020 with 25 practitioners employed across 11 NGOs and involved in HWWS interventions targeting older children in development and humanitarian settings. We used purposive and snowball sampling to recruit participants in roles at the global, national/regional, and local levels. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed to identify challenges and solutions to HWWS interventions targeting older children. Results were organized according to program development cycle stages.

RESULTS

Twelve themes relating to perceived challenges emerged: (1) lack of prioritization, (2) funding inconsistency, (3) insufficient formative research, (4) demand on resources, (5) unengaging intervention content, (6) non-enabling physical environments, (7) availability of skilled implementers, (8) reaching out-of-school children, (9) community mistrust, (10) lack of coordination, (11) lack of evaluation rigor, and (12) failure to assign older children's HWWS as a primary outcome in evaluations of hygiene interventions. Recommended solutions were at the intervention, organization, and sector levels.

CONCLUSION

Intervention design and delivery are important for the success of HWWS interventions for older children, but contextual factors, such as the availability of human and material resources and the level of coordination within and beyond the NGO sector, should also be considered. NGOs need to prioritize HWWS promotion among older children and support programs accordingly.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low-certainty evidence).  One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.  Hand hygiene compared to control Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta-analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low-certainty evidence), and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low-certainty evidence). We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Improving Toilet Usability and Cleanliness in Public Schools in the Philippines Using a Packaged Operation and Maintenance Intervention

This study evaluated the impact of packaged interventions for operation and maintenance (O&M) on the usability and cleanliness of toilets in public schools in the Philippines. In this cluster-randomized controlled trial, the divisions of Roxas City and Passi City were randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. Schools in Roxas City (n = 14) implemented the packaged O&M interventions; schools in Passi City (n = 16) formed the control group. Outcome variables were toilet usability-defined as accessible, functional and private-and toilet cleanliness, measured using the Sanitation Assessment Tool (SAT) and the Cleaner Toilets, Brighter Future (CTBF) instruments at baseline and at four months follow-up through direct observation of school toilets. SAT results showed that intervention schools had a 32.0% (4.6%; 59.3%) higher percentage of usable toilets than control schools at follow-up after full adjustment (p = 0.024). CTBF results found a similar result, although this was not statistically significant (p = 0.119). The percentage of toilets that were fully clean was 27.1% (3.7%; 50.6%) higher in intervention schools than in control schools after adjustment (p = 0.025). SAT results also showed an improvement in cleanliness of toilets in intervention schools compared to those in controls, but this did not remain significant after adjustment. The findings indicate that the additional implementation of O&M interventions can further stimulate progress towards reaching Water, Sanitation and Hygiene service levels aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals.

School and community driven dengue vector control and monitoring in Myanmar: Study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

Background. Dengue is the most common and widespread mosquito-borne arboviral disease globally estimated to cause >390 million infections and >20,000 deaths annually. There are no effective vaccines or preventive drugs. Control of dengue transmission relies primarily on mosquito vector control. Although most vector control methods currently used by national dengue control programs may temporarily reduce mosquito populations, there is little evidence that they affect transmission. There is an urgent need for innovative, participatory, effective, and locally adapted approaches for sustainable vector control and monitoring in which students can be particularly relevant contributors and to demonstrate a clear link between vector reduction and dengue transmission reduction, using tools that are inexpensive and easy to use by local communities in a sustainable manner. Methods. Here we describe a cluster randomized controlled trial to be conducted in 46 school catchment areas in two townships in Yangon, Myanmar. The outcome measures are dengue cases confirmed by rapid diagnostic test in the townships, dengue incidence in schools, entomological indices, knowledge, attitudes and practice, behavior, and engagement. Conclusions. The trial involves middle school students that positions them to become actors in dengue knowledge transfer to their communities and take a leadership role in the delivery of vector control interventions and monitoring methods. Following this rationale, we believe that students can become change agents of decentralized vector surveillance and sustainable disease control in line with recent new paradigms in integrated and participatory vector surveillance and control. This provides an opportunity to operationalize transdisciplinary research towards sustainable health development. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and political instability in Myanmar the project has been terminated by the donor, but the protocol will be helpful for potential future implementation of the project in Myanmar and/or elsewhere. Registration: This trial was registered in the ISRCTN Registry on 31 May 2022 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN78254298).

A Structured Review of Emotional Barriers to WASH Provision for Schoolgirls Post-Disaster

Pubescent girls face unique emotional barriers to returning to school after a disaster concerning water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH). This paper explores themes of WASH, gender violence, the lack of dignity and sense of shame arising from inadequate WASH facilities for girls in disaster settings. We conducted a structured literature review of 126 sources to investigate the emotional constraints facing pubescent girls concerning WASH in schools in Indonesia, a region prone to frequent disasters. Findings are synthesised into four major themes: psychological experiences of WASH, challenges faced by girls in schools, barriers to inclusive WASH provision and how to create a holistic approach to WASH. Key conclusions include the need for interdisciplinary research, cross sectoral collaboration, more evidence and research in Indonesia, especially regarding menstrual hygiene management, improved toilet design to reduce the physical barriers linked to emotional barriers and inclusive design for those with disabilities.

Attributes of drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene associated with microbiological water quality of stored drinking water in rural schools in Mozambique and Uganda

Contaminated drinking water causes morbidity and mortality worldwide, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Drinking water quality has been studied extensively in household settings, but little research is available on drinking water quality in schools. School settings are of particular importance, because children are more susceptible than adults to a variety of diseases from contaminated drinking water. Many school water, sanitation and hygiene (WaSH) interventions have been studied for their efficacy to reduce diarrheal disease incidence, but few have evaluated drinking water quality, which reflects an important exposure pathway between WaSH services and health outcomes. Using school surveys developed from internationally established WaSH indicators and field microbiological water quality tests, we studied 374 rural schools in Mozambique and Uganda to understand the association between specific WaSH services and drinking water microbiological contamination, specifically testing most probable number (MPN) of Escherichia coli, an indicator of fecal contamination, per 100 mL. In Mozambique and Uganda, 71% and 83% respectively of rural schools had low risk drinking water quality (<1 E. coli/100 mL); thirteen percent and seven percent had very high-risk water quality (≥100 E. coli/100 mL). When accounting for all WaSH services studied, schools that used an improved-type water source had 0.22 times less E. coli in stored drinking water in Mozambique (95% CI: 0.07, 0.65) and 0.12 times less E. coli in Uganda (95% CI: 0.02, 0.80). In Mozambique, use of a water source within 30 minutes for travel and collection and the presence of water and soap/ash for handwashing were also significantly associated with less E. coli in drinking water. The findings of this study provide public health practitioners with implementable WaSH services to improve school drinking water quality, which has implications for the health, learning environment, and cognitive development of school children in rural Mozambique and Uganda.

Personal hygiene in schools: retrospective survey in the northern part of Côte d'Ivoire

Introduction

Students' personal hygiene helps maintain health and promote good academic performance. When health facilities are insufficient, this hygiene can be difficult to achieve. We wanted to analyse the determinants of personal hygiene in schools in the northern region of Côte d'Ivoire.

Methods

The retrospective cross-sectional study brings together data on 2,035 schoolchildren recruited from thirty schools in northern Côte d'Ivoire. Indexes on personal hygiene were constructed and analysed in comparison to the socio-demographic characteristics of students, homes and schools. They were analysed with R Software version 1.1.463, the χ² test and a logistic regression model.

Results

Overall, the majority of students had good personal hygiene (82.75%) with an average personal hygiene score of 4.74 ± 1.36. The predictors of good personal hygiene among schoolchildren were female gender (OR = 1.5; 95% CI = 4.31-16.37), father's primary education level (OR = 1.55; 95% CI = 1.07-2.29), the father's income level above 60,000 FCFA (90 Euros) and modern housing (OR = 1.45; 95% CI = 1.05-2.03). However, the poor level of home sanitation resulted in poor personal hygiene among the students (OR = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.23-0.5).

Conclusions

Measures to raise the standard of living of families and the provision of sanitary facilities in homes becomes necessary in order to improve students personal hygiene.

Effects of Hand-Washing Facilities with Water and Soap on Diarrhea Incidence among Children under Five Years in Lao People's Democratic Republic: A Cross-Sectional Study

Diarrhea is a leading cause of death among children under five (U5) in Lao People’s Democratic Republic (PDR). This study assessed the association between the presence of household hand-washing facilities with water and soap and diarrhea episodes among children U5 in Lao PDR. Data from the Lao Social Indicator Survey II were used. The outcome variable was diarrhea episodes in the two weeks preceding the survey. The main predictor variable was the presence of household hand-washing facilities with or without water and/or soap. Mixed-effect logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association, controlling for clustering, and other predictor variables. Of the 8640 households surveyed with 11,404 children, 49.1% possessed hand-washing facilities with both water and soap and 34.7% possessed hand-washing facilities with water alone. Children whose households possessed hand-washing facilities with water alone were significantly more likely to have a diarrhea episode compared to children whose households possessed hand-washing facilities with both water and soap (8.1% vs. 5.9%; odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.22–1.81). The association remained significant even after adjusting for other predictors. The absence of soap in hand-washing facilities was associated with higher odds of having a diarrhea episode among children U5 in Lao PDR.

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.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL on 1 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 March 2020. We conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis on the newly included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of trials investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. In previous versions of this review we also included observational studies. However, for this update, there were sufficient RCTs to address our study aims.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Three pairs of review authors independently extracted data using a standard template applied in previous versions of this review, but which was revised to reflect our focus on RCTs and cluster-RCTs for this update. We did not contact trialists for missing data due to the urgency in completing the review. We extracted data on adverse events (harms) associated with the interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs in this update, bringing the total number of randomised trials to 67. There were no included studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Six ongoing studies were identified, of which three evaluating masks are being conducted concurrent with the COVID pandemic, and one is completed. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods, but several studies were conducted during the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Thus, studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Compliance with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID-19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). There is uncertainty over the effects of N95/P2 respirators when compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcomes of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; very low-certainty evidence; 3 trials; 7779 participants) and ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). The evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). Restricting the pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies. One ongoing study recruiting 576 people compares N95/P2 respirators with medical surgical masks for healthcare workers during COVID-19. Hand hygiene compared to control Settings included schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. In a comparison of hand hygiene interventions with control (no intervention), there was a 16% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86; 7 trials; 44,129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 10 trials; 32,641 participants; low-certainty evidence) and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials; 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence) suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled all 16 trials (61,372 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. The pooled data showed that hand hygiene may offer a benefit with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. Few trials measured and reported harms. There are two ongoing studies of handwashing interventions in 395 children outside of COVID-19. We identified one RCT on quarantine/physical distancing. Company employees in Japan were asked to stay at home if household members had ILI symptoms. Overall fewer people in the intervention group contracted influenza compared with workers in the control group (2.75% versus 3.18%; hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). However, those who stayed at home with their infected family members were 2.17 times more likely to be infected. We found no RCTs on eye protection, gowns and gloves, or screening at entry ports.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID-19 pandemic. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low-moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Impact of a school-based water, sanitation and hygiene programme on children's independent handwashing and toothbrushing habits: a cluster-randomised trial

Objectives

To explore whether a school-based water, sanitation and hygiene programme, which includes group hygiene activities, contributes to the formation of independent handwashing and toothbrushing habits among Filipino children.

Methods

In this cluster-randomised trial, twenty primary schools were randomly allocated to the intervention or control arm. Intervention schools received group handwashing facilities and implemented daily group handwashing and toothbrushing activities. A soap use to toilet event ratio was calculated to measure children’s independent handwashing behaviour after toilet use, and dental plaque accumulation on Monday morning was measured as a proxy indicator for children’s independent toothbrushing behaviour at home.

Results

Four months after implementation, handwashing and toothbrushing behaviours did not significantly differ between intervention and control schools. The mean soap use in intervention schools and control schools was 0.41 g and 0.30 g per toilet event, respectively (p = 0.637). Compared to baseline, mean plaque scores reduced by 4.2% and 3.5% in intervention and control schools, respectively (p = 0.857).

Conclusions

Although health benefits have been established, school-based group handwashing and toothbrushing may not be sufficient to increase children’s uptake of independent hygiene behaviours.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00038-020-01514-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Environmental and spatial determinants of enteric pathogen infection in rural Lao People's Democratic Republic: A cross-sectional study

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02342860).

A systematic review of hand-hygiene and environmental-disinfection interventions in settings with children

Background

Helping adults and children develop better hygiene habits is an important public health focus. As infection causing bacteria can live on one’s body and in the surrounding environment, more effective interventions should simultaneously encourage personal-hygiene (e.g. hand-hygiene) and environmental-disinfecting (e.g. cleaning surfaces). To inform the development of a future multi-faceted intervention to improve public health, a systematic literature review was conducted on behavior change interventions designed to increase hand-hygiene and environmental-disinfecting in settings likely to include children.

Methods

The search was conducted over two comprehensive data-bases, Ebsco Medline and Web of Science, to locate intervention studies that aimed to increase hand-hygiene or environmental-disinfecting behavior in settings likely to include children. Located article titles and abstracts were independently assessed, and the full-texts of agreed articles were collaboratively assessed for inclusion. Of the 2893 titles assessed, 29 met the eligibility criteria. The extracted data describe the Behavior Change Techniques (version 1) that the interventions employed and the interventions’ effectiveness. The techniques were then linked to their associated theoretical domains and to their capability-opportunity-motivation (i.e., COM-B model) components, as described in the Behavior Change Wheel. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies’ methods and measures, a meta-analysis was not conducted.

Results

A total of 29 studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of interventions were designed to increase hand-hygiene alone (N = 27), and the remaining two interventions were designed to increase both hand-hygiene and environmental-disinfecting. The most used techniques involved shaping knowledge (N = 22) and antecedents (N = 21). Interventions that included techniques targeting four or more theoretical domains and all the capability-opportunity-motivation components were descriptively more effective.

Conclusions

In alignment with previous findings, the current review encourages future interventions to target multiple theoretical domains, across all capability-opportunity-motivation components. The discussion urges interventionists to consider the appropriateness of interventions in their development, feasibility/pilot, evaluation, and implementation stages.

Registration

Prospero ID - CRD42019133735.

The impact of an operation and management intervention on toilet usability in schools in the Philippines: a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background

Access to usable water, sanitation and hygiene provision in schools is included within indicators in the Sustainable Development Goals. Progress towards these indicators is dependent on developing an understanding of which intervention components are most effective to operate and maintain usable services. This study aimed to determine the impact of a school toilet operation and management intervention in the Philippines on toilet usability and student and teacher satisfaction, adjusted for clustering at school level.

Methods

In a non-blinded cluster randomised controlled trial, we compared improvements in usability and cleanliness of school toilets among those schools receiving a low-cost, replicable intervention. Toilet usability was measured based on Sustainable Development Goal indicators related to school sanitation defined by the UNICEF/WHO Joint Monitoring Programme for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene. Intervention schools received consumables, support kits, and structured tools designed to facilitate operation and maintenance of sanitation facilities. The primary outcome, toilet usability and cleanliness, was compared through a difference-in-difference analysis of toilet usability. Secondary outcomes of student and teacher satisfaction were measured through a survey at endline. All outcomes were adjusted for clustering at school level.

Results

20 eligible schools in the Batangas region of the Philippines were randomly selected and allocated to either control or intervention group. We found that non-classroom toilets were 48% more likely to meet quality benchmarks in intervention schools, but this was not statistically significant. When including in-classroom toilets in the analysis, there were no significant differences in toilet usability - defined as accessible, functional, private and of high quality – between intervention and control schools. When stratified by toilet location, children in the intervention group clusters expressed a minor, but statistically significant increase in overall satisfaction with sanitation facilities (p = 0.035).

Conclusion

Water, sanitation and hygiene interventions in schools focusing on operation and maintenance showed potential to improve toilet usability, but universal achievement of SDG targets may require additional efforts addressing toilet infrastructure.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03204175, June 2017 prior to participant enrolment.

Factors perceived to facilitate or hinder handwashing among primary students: a qualitative assessment of the Mikono Safi intervention schools in NW Tanzania

OBJECTIVE

To qualitatively assess the effects of a multi-modal school-based water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) intervention on handwashing behaviour among primary students in North Western (NW) Tanzania.

DESIGN

The study was a qualitative assessment of barriers and facilitators to handwashing among students attending primary schools participating in the Mikono Safi Trial (Kiswahili for 'Clean Hands), a cluster-randomised trial assessing the impact of a school-based WASH intervention on selected soil transmitted helminth infections. Data collection methods included in-depth interviews with teachers, focus group discussions and friendship pair interviews with students collected between April and October 2018. The Capability-Opportunity-Motivation and Behaviour model was used to inform data collection and analysis.

SETTING

The study was conducted in four purposively selected intervention schools in three districts of Kagera region, NW Tanzania (Bukoba urban, Bukoba rural and Muleba districts).

PARTICIPANTS

Participants comprised 16 purposively selected teachers aged between 23 and 52 years and 100 students aged 7-15 years RESULTS: The Mikono Safi intervention increased students' reported capability and motivation to wash their hands with soap at key times, particularly after visiting the toilet. Improvements in students' handwashing knowledge and skills were reported by both teachers and students, and motivation for handwashing was enhanced by emotional drivers such as disgust, fear and nurture. Newly established handwashing stations improved the physical opportunity to wash hands, although the availability of water and the provision of soap was not always consistent (eg, due to internal organisational shortcomings or during the dry season). Students and teachers were actively engaged in intervention implementation which created a school community that valued and supported improved hand hygiene.

CONCLUSION

The intervention was successful in improving capability and motivation for handwashing. Handwashing opportunity was also greatly improved, although the supply with water and soap was sometimes interrupted, calling for much stronger multi-sectoral collaboration to improve access to water at schools.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN45013173; Pre-results.

Impact of a school-based water, sanitation, and hygiene intervention on school absence, diarrhea, respiratory infection, and soil-transmitted helminths: results from the WASH HELPS cluster-randomized trial

Background

Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) in schools is promoted by development agencies as a modality to improve school attendance by reducing illness. Despite biological plausibility, the few rigorous studies that have assessed the effect of WASH in schools (WinS) interventions on pupil health and school attendance have reported mixed impacts. We evaluated the impact of the Laos Basic Education, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Programme – a comprehensive WinS project implemented by UNICEF Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR) in 492 primary schools nationwide between 2013 and 2017 – on pupil education and health.

Methods

From 2014-2017, we conducted a cluster-randomized trial among 100 randomly selected primary schools lacking functional WASH facilities in Saravane Province, Lao PDR. Schools were randomly assigned to either the intervention (n = 50) or comparison (n = 50) arm. Intervention schools received a school water supply, sanitation facilities, handwashing facilities, drinking water filters, and behavior change education and promotion. Comparison schools received the intervention after research activities ended. At unannounced visits every six to eight weeks, enumerators recorded pupils’ roll-call absence, enrollment, attrition, progression to the next grade, and reported illness (diarrhea, respiratory infection, conjunctivitis), and conducted structured observations to measure intervention fidelity and adherence. Stool samples were collected annually prior to de-worming and analyzed for soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infection. In addition to our primary intention-to-treat analysis, we conducted secondary analyses to quantify the role of intervention fidelity and adherence on project impacts.

Results

We found no impact of the WinS intervention on any primary (pupil absence) or secondary (enrollment, dropout, grade progression, diarrhea, respiratory infection, conjunctivitis, STH infection) impacts. Even among schools with the highest levels of fidelity and adherence, impact of the intervention on absence and health was minimal.

Conclusions

While WinS may create an important enabling environment, WinS interventions alone and as currently delivered may not be sufficient to independently impact pupil education and health. Our results are consistent with other recent evaluations of WinS projects showing limited or mixed effects of WinS.

Associations between soil-transmitted helminthiasis and viral, bacterial, and protozoal enteroinfections: a cross-sectional study in rural Laos

Background

Humans are susceptible to over 1400 pathogens. Co-infection by multiple pathogens is common, and can result in a range of neutral, facilitative, or antagonistic interactions within the host. Soil-transmitted helminths (STH) are powerful immunomodulators, but evidence of the effect of STH infection on the direction and magnitude of concurrent enteric microparasite infections is mixed.

Methods

We collected fecal samples from 891 randomly selected children and adults in rural Laos. Samples were analyzed for 5 STH species, 6 viruses, 9 bacteria, and 5 protozoa using a quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) assay. We utilized logistic regression, controlling for demographics and household water, sanitation, and hygiene access, to examine the effect of STH infection on concurrent viral, bacterial, and protozoal infection.

Results

We found that STH infection was associated with lower odds of concurrent viral infection [odds ratio (OR): 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.28–0.83], but higher odds of concurrent bacterial infections (OR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.06–3.07) and concurrent protozoal infections (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 0.95–2.37). Trends were consistent across STH species.

Conclusions

The impact of STH on odds of concurrent microparasite co-infection may differ by microparasite taxa, whereby STH infection was negatively associated with viral infections but positively associated with bacterial and protozoal infections. Results suggest that efforts to reduce STH through preventive chemotherapy could have a spillover effect on microparasite infections, though the extent of this impact requires additional study. The associations between STH and concurrent microparasite infection may reflect a reverse effect due to the cross-sectional study design. Additional research is needed to elucidate the exact mechanism of the immunomodulatory effects of STH on concurrent enteric microparasite infection.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13071-019-3471-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) in Schools in Low-Income Countries: A Review of Evidence of Impact

Many schools in low-income countries have inadequate access to water facilities, sanitation and hygiene promotion. A systematic review of literature was carried out that aimed to identify and analyse the impact of water, sanitation and hygiene interventions (WASH) in schools in low-income countries. Published peer reviewed literature was systematically screened during March to June 2018 using the databases PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. There were no publication date restrictions. Thirty-eight peer reviewed papers were identified that met the inclusion criteria. The papers were analysed in groups, based on four categories of reported outcomes: (i) reduction of diarrhoeal disease and other hygiene-related diseases in school students; (ii) improved WASH knowledge, attitudes and hygiene behaviours among students; (iii) reduced disease burden and improved hygiene behaviours in students' households and communities; (iv) improved student enrolment and attendance. The typically unmeasured and unreported 'output' and/or 'exposure' of program fidelity and adherence was also examined. Several studies provide evidence of positive disease-related outcomes among students, yet other assessments did not find statistically significant differences in health or indicated that outcomes are dependent on the nature and context of interventions. Thirteen studies provide evidence of changes in WASH knowledge, attitudes and behaviours, such as hand-washing with soap. Further research is required to understand whether and how school-based WASH interventions might improve hygiene habits and health among wider family and community members. Evidence of the impact of school-based WASH programs in reducing student absence from school was mixed. Ensuring access to safe and sufficient water and sanitation and hygiene promotion in schools has great potential to improve health and education and to contribute to inclusion and equity, yet delivering school-based WASH intervention does not guarantee good outcomes. While further rigorous research will be of value, political will and effective interventions with high program fidelity are also key.