Access to waterless hand sanitizer improves student hand hygiene behavior in primary schools in Nairobi, Kenya

Effectiveness of handwashing with soap for preventing acute respiratory infections in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory infection (ARI) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally, with 83% of ARI mortality occurring in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) before the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to estimate the effect of interventions promoting handwashing with soap on ARI in LMICs.

METHODS

In our systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Global Health, and Global Index Medicus for studies of handwashing with soap interventions in LMICs from inception to May 25, 2021. We included randomised and non-randomised controlled studies of interventions conducted in domestic, school, or childcare settings. Interventions promoting hand hygiene methods other than handwashing with soap were excluded, as were interventions in health-care facilities or the workplace. The primary outcome was ARI morbidity arising from any pathogen for participants of any age. Secondary outcomes were lower respiratory infection, upper respiratory infection, influenza confirmed by diagnostic test, COVID-19 confirmed by diagnostic test, and all-cause mortality. We extracted relative risks (RRs), using random-effects meta-analysis to analyse study results, and metaregression to evaluate heterogeneity. We assessed risk of bias in individual studies using an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and assessed the overall body of evidence using a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021231414.

FINDINGS

26 studies with 161 659 participants met inclusion criteria, providing 27 comparisons (21 randomised). Interventions promoting handwashing with soap reduced any ARI compared with no handwashing intervention (RR 0·83 [95% CI 0·76-0·90], I2 88%; 27 comparisons). Interventions also reduced lower respiratory infections (0·78 [0·64-0·94], I2 64%; 12 comparisons) and upper respiratory infections (0·74 [0·59-0·93], I2 91%; seven comparisons), but not test-confirmed influenza (0·94 [0·42-2·11], I2 90%; three comparisons), test-confirmed COVID-19 (no comparisons), or all-cause mortality (prevalence ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·71-1·27]; one comparison). For ARI, no heterogeneity covariates were significant at p<0·1 and the GRADE rating was moderate certainty evidence.

INTERPRETATION

Interventions promoting handwashing with soap can reduce ARI in LMICs, and could help to prevent the large burden of respiratory disease.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Reckitt Global Hygiene Institute, and UK FCDO.

Effectiveness of interventions to improve drinking water, sanitation, and handwashing with soap on risk of diarrhoeal disease in children in low-income and middle-income settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Estimates of the effectiveness of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions that provide high levels of service on childhood diarrhoea are scarce. We aimed to provide up-to-date estimates on the burden of disease attributable to WASH and on the effects of different types of WASH interventions on childhood diarrhoea in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we updated previous reviews following their search strategy by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and BIOSIS Citation Index for studies of basic WASH interventions and of WASH interventions providing a high level of service, published between Jan 1, 2016, and May 25, 2021. We included randomised and non-randomised controlled trials conducted at household or community level that matched exposure categories of the so-called service ladder approach of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) for WASH. Two reviewers independently extracted study-level data and assessed risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and certainty of evidence using a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We analysed extracted relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs using random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42016043164.

FINDINGS

19 837 records were identified from the search, of which 124 studies were included, providing 83 water (62 616 children), 20 sanitation (40 799 children), and 41 hygiene (98 416 children) comparisons. Compared with untreated water from an unimproved source, risk of diarrhoea was reduced by up to 50% with water treated at point of use (POU): filtration (n=23 studies; RR 0·50 [95% CI 0·41-0·60]), solar treatment (n=13; 0·63 [0·50-0·80]), and chlorination (n=25; 0·66 [0·56-0·77]). Compared with an unimproved source, provision of an improved drinking water supply on premises with higher water quality reduced diarrhoea risk by 52% (n=2; 0·48 [0·26-0·87]). Overall, sanitation interventions reduced diarrhoea risk by 24% (0·76 [0·61-0·94]). Compared with unimproved sanitation, providing sewer connection reduced diarrhoea risk by 47% (n=5; 0·53 [0·30-0·93]). Promotion of handwashing with soap reduced diarrhoea risk by 30% (0·70 [0·64-0·76]).

INTERPRETATION

WASH interventions reduced risk of diarrhoea in children in LMICs. Interventions supplying either water filtered at POU, higher water quality from an improved source on premises, or basic sanitation services with sewer connection were associated with increased reductions. Our results support higher service levels called for under SDG 6. Notably, no studies evaluated interventions that delivered access to safely managed WASH services, the level of service to which universal coverage by 2030 is committed under the SDG.

FUNDING

WHO, Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Interventions for High-Burden Infectious Diseases in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 2.2 million deaths were reported among school-age children and young people in 2019, and infectious diseases remain the leading causes of morbidity and mortality, especially in low and middle-income countries. We aim to synthesize evidence on interventions for high-burden infectious diseases among children and adolescents aged 5 to 19 years.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search until December 31, 2020. Two review authors independently screened studies for relevance, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.

RESULTS

We included a total of 31 studies, including 81 596 participants. Sixteen studies focused on diarrhea; 6 on tuberculosis; 2 on human immunodeficiency virus; 2 on measles; 1 study each on acute respiratory infections, malaria, and urinary tract infections; and 2 studies targeted multiple diseases. We did not find any study on other high burden infectious diseases among this age group. We could not perform meta-analysis for most outcomes because of variances in interventions and outcomes. Findings suggests that for diarrhea, water treatment, water filtration, and zinc supplementation have some protective effect. For tuberculosis, peer counseling, contingency contract, and training of health care workers led to improvements in tuberculosis detection and treatment completion. Continuation of cotrimoxazole therapy reduced the risk of tuberculosis and hospitalizations among human immunodeficiency virus-infected children and reduced measles complications and pneumonia cases among measles-infected children. Zinc supplementation led to a faster recovery in urinary tract infections with a positive effect in reducing symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

There is scarcity of data on the effectiveness of interventions for high-burden infectious diseases among school-aged children and adolescents.

Effects of a Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Mobile Health Program on Respiratory Illness in Bangladesh: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of the CHoBI7 Mobile Health Program

Acute respiratory infections are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among young children globally. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the Cholera-Hospital-Based-Intervention-for-7-days (CHoBI7) handwashing with soap and water treatment mobile health (mHealth) program on respiratory illness among diarrhea patients and their household members in urban Dhaka, Bangladesh. A cluster-randomized controlled trial of the CHoBI7 mHealth program was conducted among diarrhea patient households in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Patients were randomized to three arms: standard recommendation on oral rehydration solution use, health facility delivery of CHoBI7 plus mHealth (weekly voice and text messages for 12 months) (no home visits), and health facility delivery of CHoBI7 plus two home visits and mHealth. Respiratory symptoms were assessed during monthly clinical surveillance over the 12-month surveillance period. Respiratory illness was defined as rapid breathing, difficulty breathing, wheezing, or coughing. Two thousand six hundred twenty-six participants in 769 households were randomly allocated to three arms: 849 participants to the standard message arm, 886 to the mHealth with no home visits arm, and 891 to the mHealth with two home visits arm. Compared with the standard message arm, participants in the mHealth with no home visits arm (Prevalence Ratio [PR]: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.80, 0.98]), and the mHealth with two home visits arm (PR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.81, 0.99]) had significantly lower respiratory illness prevalence over the 12-month program period. Our findings demonstrate that the CHoBI7 mHealth program is effective in reducing respiratory illness among diarrhea patient households.

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

The potential of school-based WASH programming to support children as agents of change in rural Zambian households

Background

Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions frequently assume that students who learn positive WASH behaviors will disseminate this information to their families. This is most prominent in school-based programs, which rely on students to act as “agents of change” to translate impact from school to home. However, there is little evidence to support or contradict this assumption.

Methods

We conducted a quasi-experimental, prospective cohort study in 12 schools in rural, southern Zambia to measure the impact of WASH UP!, a school-based WASH program designed by the creators of Sesame Street. WASH UP! is an educational program that uses stories and interactive games to teach students in grades 1–4 about healthy behaviors, such as washing hands and using the latrine. We completed in-person interviews with grade 1 and 4 students (N = 392 and 369, respectively), their teachers (N = 24) and caregivers (N = 729) using structured surveys containing both open- and closed-ended questions. We measured changes in knowledge and whether students reported sharing WASH-related messages learned in school with their caregivers at home.

Results

Student knowledge increased significantly, but primarily among students in grade 1. Overall rates of students reporting that they shared messages from the curriculum with their caregivers rose from 7 to 23% (p <  0.001). Students in grade 4 were 5.2 times as likely as those in grade 1 to report sharing a WASH-related message with their caregivers (ARR = 5.2, 95% C.I. = (2.3, 8.9); p <  0.001).

Conclusions

Although we measured only modest levels of student dissemination of WASH UP! messages from the school to the home, students in grade 4 showed significantly more promise as agents of change than those in grade 1. Future work should prioritize developing curricula that reflect the variability in needs, capabilities and support in the home and community among primary school students rather than a single approach for a wide range of ages and contexts.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-11824-3.

Factors influencing sanitation and hygiene practices among students in a public university in Bangladesh

INTRODUCTION

Improved hygiene and sanitation practices in educational settings are effective for the prevention of infections, controlling the transmission of pathogens, and promoting good health. Bangladesh has made remarkable advances in improving higher education in recent decades. Over a hundred universities were established to expand higher education facilities across the country. Hundreds of thousands of graduate students spend time in university settings during their studies. However, little is known about the sanitation and hygiene practice of the university-going population. This study aims to understand and uncover which factors influence students' sanitation and hygiene behavior in university settings.

METHODS

This study was conducted in a public university named Shahjalal University of Science and Technology located in a divisional city of Bangladesh. Based on the Integrated Behavioral Model for Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (IBM-WASH), we adopted an exploratory qualitative study design. We developed semi-structured interview guides entailing sanitation and hygiene behavior, access, and practice-related questions and tested their efficacy and clarity before use. We conducted seventeen in-depth interviews (IDIs), and four focus group discussions (FGDs, [6-8 participants per FGD]) with students, and seven key informant interviews (KIIs) with university staff. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. Triangulation of methods and participants was performed to achieve data validity.

RESULTS

Despite having reasonable awareness and knowledge, the sanitation and hygiene practices of the students were remarkably low. A broad array of interconnected factors influenced sanitation and hygiene behavior, as well as each other. Individual factors (gender, awareness, perception, and sense of health benefits), contextual factors (lack of cleanliness and maintenance, and the supply of sanitary products), socio-behavioural factors (norms, peer influence), and factors related to university infrastructure (shortage of female toilets, lack of monitoring and supervision of cleaning activities) emerged as the underpinning factors that determined the sanitation and hygiene behavior of the university going-population.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that despite the rapid expansion of on-campus university education, hygiene practices in public universities are remarkably poor due to a variety of dynamic and interconnected factors situated in different (individual, contextual, socio-phycological) levels. Therefore, multi-level interventions including regular supply of WASH-related materials and agents, promoting low-cost WASH interventions, improving quality cleaning services, close monitoring of cleaning activities, promoting good hygiene behavior at the individual level, and introducing gender-sensitive WASH infrastructure and construction may be beneficial to advance improved sanitation and hygiene practices among university students.

Soap versus sanitiser for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections in the community: a systematic review with meta-analysis and dose-response analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of hand hygiene using alcohol-based hand sanitiser to soap and water for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and to assess the relationship between the dose of hand hygiene and the number of ARI, influenza-like illness (ILI) or influenza events.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and trial registries were searched in April 2020.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared a community-based hand hygiene intervention (soap and water, or sanitiser) with a control, or trials that compared sanitiser with soap and water, and measured outcomes of ARI, ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza or related consequences.

DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts for inclusion and extracted data.

RESULTS

Eighteen trials were included. When meta-analysed, three trials of soap and water versus control found a non-significant increase in ARI events (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.93); six trials of sanitiser versus control found a significant reduction in ARI events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89). When hand hygiene dose was plotted against ARI relative risk, no clear dose-response relationship was observable. Four trials were head-to-head comparisons of sanitiser and soap and water but too heterogeneous to pool: two found a significantly greater reduction in the sanitiser group compared with the soap group and two found no significant difference between the intervention arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Adequately performed hand hygiene, with either soap or sanitiser, reduces the risk of ARI virus transmission; however, direct and indirect evidence suggest sanitiser might be more effective in practice.

Effectiveness of behaviour change techniques used in hand hygiene interventions targeting older children - A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Promoting good hand hygiene in older children is an important measure to reduce the burden of common diseases such as diarrhoea and acute respiratory infections. The evidence around what works to change this behaviour, however, is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To aid future intervention design and effective use of resources, this review aims to identify the individual components used in hand hygiene interventions and assesses their contribution to intended behavioural change.

METHODS

We systematically searched seven databases for experimental studies evaluating hand hygiene interventions targeting children (age 5-12) and quantitively reporting hand hygiene behaviour. Interventions in each study were categorised as 'promising', or 'non-promising' according to whether they led to a positive change in the targeted behaviour. Behaviour change techniques (BCTs) were identified across interventions using a standard taxonomy and a novel promise ratio calculated for each (the ratio of promising to non-promising interventions featuring the BCT). 'Promising' BCTs were those with a promise ratio of ≥2. BCTs were ranked from most to least promising.

RESULTS

Our final analysis included 19 studies reporting 22 interventions across which 32 unique BCTs were identified. The most frequently used were 'demonstration of the behaviour', 'instruction on how to perform the behaviour' and 'adding objects to the environment'. Eight BCTs had a promise ratio of ≥2 and the five most promising were 'demonstration of the behaviour', 'information about social and environmental consequences', 'salience of consequences', 'adding objects to the environment', and 'instruction on how to perform the behaviour'.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that hand hygiene interventions targeting older children should employ a combination of promising BCTs that ensure children understand the behaviour and the consequences of their hand hygiene habits, appropriate hardware is available, and social support is provided. Researchers are encouraged to consistently and transparently describe evaluated interventions to allow promising components to be identified and replicated.

Nonpharmacological interventions to reduce respiratory viral transmission: an evidence-based review with recommendations

BACKGROUND

Viral respiratory infections are a leading cause of worldwide mortality and exert the potential to cause global socioeconomic crises. However, inexpensive, efficacious, and rapidly deployable strategies to reduce viral transmission are increasingly important in the setting of an ongoing pandemic, though not entirely understood. This article provides a comprehensive review of commonly employed nonpharmacological interventions to interrupt viral spread and provides evidence-based recommendations for their use.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic review of three databases was performed. Studies with defined endpoints of subjects receiving one of five interventions (nasal washing, gargling, personal protective equipment (PPE), social distancing, and hand hygiene) were included. An evidence-based review of the highest level of evidence, with recommendations, was created in accordance with a previously described, rigorous, iterative process.

RESULTS

Fifty-four primary studies were included. The most commonly studied intervention was hand hygiene, followed by PPE, gargling, saline nasal washing, and social distancing.

CONCLUSIONS

Mask use and hand hygiene are strong recommendations for prevention of viral transmission. Donning gloves, gowns, and eye protection are a recommendation in healthcare settings. Saline nasal washing and gargling are options in selected populations. Although an aggregate level of evidence is not provided, the authors recommend social distancing.

A kindergarten-based, family-involved intervention to improve children's hand hygiene behavior: A cluster-randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The present study determined the feasibility and initial efficacy of a kindergarten-based, family-involved intervention in improving children's hand hygiene (HH) behaviors.

DESIGN

A cluster-randomized controlled trial was performed, with a cluster defined as a kindergarten class.

SAMPLE

Participants were recruited from 20 classes in six kindergartens. A total of 289 children and their families were enrolled in the intervention group, and 293 children and their families were enrolled in the control group.

MEASUREMENTS

HH behavior and a related knowledge survey, as well as data on absences due to infection, were collected.

INTERVENTION

An 8-week training session on HH for children and an education program combining a seminar and WeChat groups for parents were provided to participants in the intervention group.

RESULTS

Two HH behaviors of children, namely, HH after playing outside and 7-stage HH compliance, were significantly different between the two groups after the intervention. The two HH behaviors and knowledge of infections of parents/legal guardians in the intervention group were better than those in the control group after the intervention. The number of absences due to infections in children was lower in the intervention group than in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Kindergarten-based, family-involved interventions effectively improved the HH behavior of kindergarten children and decreased absences due to infections.

Could Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizer Be an Option for Hand Hygiene for Households in Rural Bangladesh?

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), hand sanitizer may be a convenient alternative to soap and water to increase hand hygiene practices. We explored perceptions, acceptability, and use of hand sanitizer in rural Bangladesh. We enrolled 120 households from three rural villages. Promoters distributed free alcohol-based hand sanitizer, installed handwashing stations (bucket with tap, stand, basin, and bottle for soapy water), and conducted household visits and community meetings. During Phase 1, promoters recommended handwashing with soap or soapy water, or hand sanitizer after defecation, after cleaning a child's anus/feces, and before food preparation. In Phase 2, they recommended separate key times for hand sanitizer: before touching a child ≤ 6 months and after returning home. Three to 4 months after each intervention phase, we conducted a survey, in-depth interviews, and group discussions with child caregivers and male household members. After Phase 1, 82/89 (92%) households reported handwashing with soap after defecation versus 38 (43%) reported hand sanitizer use. Participants thought soap and water removed dirt from their hands, whereas hand sanitizer killed germs. In Phase 2, 76/87 (87%) reported using hand sanitizer after returning home and 71/87 (82%) before touching a child ≤ 6 months. Qualitative study participants reported that Phase 2-recommended times for hand sanitizer use were acceptable, but handwashing with soap was preferred over hand sanitizer when there was uncertainty over choosing between the two. Hand sanitizer use was liked by household members and has potential for use in LMICs, including during the coronavirus pandemic.

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.

Evaluating children's handwashing in schools: an integrative review of indicative measures and measurement tools

Children are a key target of handwashing interventions as washing hands reduces the spread of disease and reliance on antibiotics. While there is guidance for evaluating handwashing with adults in other settings, this is lacking for children in schools. An integrative review of 65 studies where handwashing was measured in schools was conducted to establish which indicative measures (what is measured to evaluate the processes and/or impacts of, handwashing) and measurement tools (data collection instruments) have been applied to evaluate handwashing in schools, and under what circumstances. Further analysis highlighted different challenges when seeking to apply such measures and tools in schools, as opposed to other settings. It was concluded that indicative measures, and measurement tools need to be appropriate to the organizational setting, the study participants, and research objectives. A summative analysis of relevant considerations is presented.

Can Social Motivators Improve Handwashing Behavior among Children? Evidence from a Cluster Randomized Trial of a School Hygiene Intervention in the Philippines

This study reports the impact of the HiFive program, a 6-week handwashing campaign that targets social and emotional motivators to improve student handwashing in primary schools in the Philippines. We designed a clustered randomized trial to evaluate the impact of HiFive on student handwashing behavior, motivation, and access. Of the sample of 196 primary schools located in two districts, half were randomly assigned to receive the program in the 2017–2018 school year. Survey and observation data were collected 3 months after the conclusion of the campaign. In control schools, only 2.5% of students were observed washing their hands with soap and water, our primary outcome and 14.8% were observed washing their hands with at least water. HiFive led to a 3.7 percentage point (p.p.) increase (P < 0.01) in the rate of handwashing with soap and water and a 5.6 p.p. increase (P = 0.03) in handwashing with at least water after toilet use. HiFive also led to a 10.8 p.p. (P < 0.01) increase in the number of handwashing facilities stocked with soap. The program had limited impact on the motivators targeted by the program, suggesting that the small improvements in handwashing may have been driven by increases in the availability of soap. More research is needed to understand how interventions can effectively trigger social motivators to improve handwashing behavior among schoolchildren, and whether the effectiveness of these programs can be augmented with “nudge”-based interventions from the behavioral sciences.

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.

Use, adoption, and effectiveness of tippy-tap handwashing station in promoting hand hygiene practices in resource-limited settings: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Tippy-taps are locally made devices for washing hands with running water. They are simple and low-cost, enabling technology that provides adequate water sources, handwashing stations and motivation for people to prioritise handwashing. This systematic review aimed to establish the use, benefits, adoption and effectiveness of enabling technology; tippy-tap handwashing station, in resource-limited settings.

METHODS

We systematically searched for articles in the PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, DOAJ and Google Scholar databases guided by the acceptable best practice developed by the PROSPERO and COCHRANE for systematic search and selection of articles. Search terms such as tippy-taps, enabling technology, hand-washing station, hand-washing behaviour, diarrhoea, respiratory infection, increase handwashing behaviour were used. In addition, a PRISMA flow diagram was used to elaborate on the number of articles retrieved, retained, excluded and reasons for every action. Studies that used tippy-tap hand washing station as a handwashing facility regardless of the design were included in this review. A mixed method appraisal tool was used to appraise studies.

RESULTS

Twenty articles met the eligibility criteria. The use of tippy-taps for handwashing by household members or school children was reported by authors of 16 studies, and it ranged from 2.7 to 80%. The availability of tippy-taps increased handwashing and use of soap among participants. Furthermore, the majority of people who were oriented to tippy-taps or recruited to tippy-tap studies built their tippy-tap stations even after the promotional activities or programs had ended. In one study, tippy-taps were reported by participant to be effective in preventing episodes of stomach pain among participants.

CONCLUSION

Tippy-tap handwashing station could help in promoting handwashing practice in resource constraint settings. Future studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of tippy-tap hand washing station on preventing water and hygiene-related infections.

A 3D-printed, touch-activated, sanitizer dispensing device for reducing healthcare-acquired infections

Aim: We present a touch-activated, sanitizer dispensing (TSD) device, intended to be mounted on high-touch surfaces, that aims to reduce nosocomial infections. It disinfects the person’s hand touching its surface while being self-sterilizing. Materials & methods: The TSD device consists of an array of 3D-printed, passive, miniaturized, mechanical valves that dispense a small amount of liquid sanitizer when touched. Its mechanical performance and disinfecting efficiency were quantified using simulations and experimental tests. Results & conclusion: The TSD device has a disinfecting efficiency comparable to the standard hand sanitizing approach, reducing the microbiological load by approximately 30-times. It can be easily mounted on high-touch surfaces in a healthcare setting and it is expected to greatly reduce the spread of nosocomial infections.

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.

Effectiveness of a Behavior Change Intervention with Hand Sanitizer Use and Respiratory Hygiene in Reducing Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza among Schoolchildren in Bangladesh: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Schoolchildren are commonly linked to influenza transmission. Handwashing with soap has been shown to decrease infections; however, improving handwashing practices using soap and water is difficult in low-resource settings. In these settings, alternative hygiene options, such as hand sanitizer, could improve handwashing promotion to reduce influenza virus infections. We conducted a cluster randomized control trial in 24 primary schools in Dhaka to assess the effectiveness of hand sanitizer and a respiratory hygiene education intervention in reducing influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed influenza during June-September 2015. Twelve schools were randomly selected to receive hand sanitizer and respiratory hygiene education, and 12 schools received no intervention. Field staff actively followed children daily to monitor for new ILI episodes (cough with fever) through school visits and by phone if a child was absent. When an illness episode was identified, medical technologists collected nasal swabs to test for influenza viruses. During the 10-week follow-up period, the incidence of ILI per 1,000 student-weeks was 22 in the intervention group versus 27 in the control group (P-value = 0.4). The incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza was 53% lower in the intervention schools (3/1,000 person-weeks) than in the control schools (6/1,000 person-weeks) (P-value = 0.01). Hand sanitizer and respiratory hygiene education can help to reduce the risk of influenza virus transmission in schools.

Does a Playful Intervention Promote Hand Hygiene? Compliance and Educator's Beliefs about Hand Hygiene at a Daycare Center

PURPOSE

Our purpose was to analyze hand hygiene compliance before and after a playful intervention, and caregivers' beliefs, perception of self-efficacy, and barriers to hand hygiene at a daycare center in Brazil.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This a quasi-experimental study was conducted from January to July 2017 in a daycare center that provides full-time education for children aged zero to four years from low-income families. The playful intervention with 24 caregivers included an emoji card game to address their beliefs and perception of self-efficacy and a product that reveals dirty areas on washed hands. For 126 children aged two to four years we used a story told through puppets, card games, songs, and a practice of washing hands colored with tempera paint.

RESULTS

The results showed that the playful intervention with children and caregivers increased hand hygiene compliance from 13.3% to 41.4% with a significant statistical difference (p < 0.001) after the intervention. The caregiver's perception of self-efficacy for hand hygiene was higher after bathroom use (59.8%) and lower after playing outdoors (28.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Playful interventions performed by nurses promote hand hygiene compliance among children and caregivers at daycare centers.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Practice implications include that health education provided by pediatric nurses is essential in promoting health and preventing the dissemination of infectious diseases to children and caregivers at daycare centers.

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.

Effect of a theory-based hand hygiene educational intervention for enhancing behavioural outcomes in Ghanaian schools: a cluster-randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The study sought to determine whether a hand hygiene educational intervention underpinned by educational and psychosocial theories is effective in enhancing behavioural intention and proper handwashing practices among school children.

METHODS

The study was a cluster-randomised controlled trial, with schools constituting the clusters. At baseline, 717 pupils organised in four clusters were recruited. Techniques for data collection included a structured observation. The Student's t test was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

At follow-up, a statistically significant difference was observed between the study arms with regard to intention to wash hands with soap [after toilet use (p = 0.032, d = 0.5); before meals (p = 0.020, d = 0.2)]. Similarly, a statistically significant difference was identified between the study arms with regard to the practice of handwashing with soap (HWWS) [after toilet use (p = 0.005); before meals (p = 0.012)].

CONCLUSIONS

A theory-driven hand hygiene educational intervention involving school children can have a medium to a very large effect size, with respect to the practice of HWWS, and a low to a medium effect size with respect to behavioural intention.

The Impact of a School-Based Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Intervention on Knowledge, Practices, and Diarrhoea Rates in the Philippines

A school-based water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) intervention in the Philippines was evaluated. Students and households from four schools that received the WASH intervention (intervention schools) were compared with four schools that had not (comparison schools). Knowledge of critical handwashing times was high across all schools, but higher in intervention schools. Students reported higher rates of handwashing after toilet use (92% vs. 87%; RR = 1.06; p = 0.003) and handwashing with soap (83% vs. 60%; RR = 1.4; p < 0.001) in intervention versus comparison schools. In intervention schools, 89% of students were directly observed to handwash after toilet use versus 31% in comparison schools (RR = 2.84; p < 0.0001). Observed differences in handwashing with soap after toilet use were particularly marked (65% vs. 10%; RR = 6.5; p < 0.0001). Reported use of school toilets to defecate (as opposed to use of toilet elsewhere or open defecation) was higher among intervention versus comparison schools (90% vs. 63%; RR = 1.4; p < 0.001). Multilevel modelling indicated that students from intervention schools reported a 10-fold reduction in odds (p < 0.001) of school absence due to diarrhoea. In addition to school-based findings, self-reported handwashing at critical times was found to be higher among household members of students from intervention schools. This school-based WASH program appeared to increase knowledge and hygiene behaviours of school students, reduce absences due to diarrhoea, and increase handwashing at critical times among household members.

21st century research in urban WASH and health in sub-Saharan Africa: methods and outcomes in transition

Tackling global inequalities in access to Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) remains an urgent issue - 58% of annual diarrhoeal deaths are caused by inadequate WASH provision. A global context of increasing urbanisation, changing demographics and health transitions demands an understanding and impact of WASH on a broad set of health outcomes. We examine the literature, in terms of health outcomes, considering WASH access and interventions in urban sub-Saharan Africa from 2000 to 2017. Our review of studies which evaluate the effectiveness of specific WASH interventions, reveals an emphasis of WASH research on acute communicable diseases, particularly diarrhoeal diseases. In contrast, chronic communicable and non-communicable health outcomes were notable gaps in the literature as well as a lack of focus on cross-cutting issues, such as ageing, well-being and gender equality. We recommend a broader focus of WASH research and interventions in urban Africa to better reflect the demographic and health transitions happening. Abbreviations: CBA: Controlled Before and After; GSD: Government Service Delivery; IWDSSD: International Drinking-Water, Supply and Sanitation Decade (IDWSSD); KAP: Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices; IBD: Irritable Bowel Diseases; MDG: Millennium Development Goals; NTD: Neglected Tropical Diseases; PSSD: Private Sector Service Delivery; SDG: Sustainable Development Goals; SSA: Sub Saharan Africa; SODIS: Solar Disinfection System; STH: Soil Transmitted Helminths; RCT: Randomised Control Trial; WASH: Water Sanitation and Hygiene; WHO: World Health Organization.

Experiences of implementing hand hygiene for Malawian schoolchildren: a qualitative study

AIM

To explore the experiences of schoolchildren, school personnel and parents who participated in a school-based hand hygiene programme implemented by nurses in Malawi.

BACKGROUND

There is low uptake of hand hygiene practice in developing countries due to limited resources available and no standardized hand hygiene policy.

INTRODUCTION

Current health policies acknowledge the advantage of investing in disease prevention and health promotion among young children in Malawi. School nurses should adopt good evidence-based practice in promoting school-based hand hygiene programmes which remain a challenge in Malawi.

METHODS

In this descriptive qualitative study, 10 focus group discussions were conducted with 23 females and 14 males including schoolchildren, school personnel and parents participating in a school-based hand hygiene programme. The programme was implemented by nurses in three primary schools between May and July 2017 in Malawi. Data from these discussions were coded and analysed using thematic analysis.

FINDINGS

The school-based hand hygiene programme was well received by participants. Four themes illustrated effective strategies in implementing the hand hygiene programme from the participants' view, including 'Being committed', 'Sharing responsibilities', 'Disseminating good practice' and 'Appreciating assets'. These are essential resources and strategies that school nurses need to mobilize and integrate when they advocate handwashing policy by delivering hygiene promotion activities.

DISCUSSION

School nurses play a significant role in helping to achieve United Nation's Sustainable Development Goal 3 through promoting hand hygiene to minimize transmission of diseases and reduce mortality rate.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING AND HEALTH POLICY

An evidence-based protocol based on study findings is beneficial for school nurses in formulating handwashing policies. It is important for developing countries to formulate the much-need policies for primary care practices.

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.

Effect of hygiene interventions on acute respiratory infections in childcare, school and domestic settings in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) disproportionately affect those living in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to determine whether hygiene interventions delivered in childcare, school or domestic settings in LMICs effectively prevent or reduce ARIs.

METHODS

We registered our systematic review with PROSPERO (CRD42017058239) and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Scopus from inception to 17 October 2017 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the impact of hygiene interventions on ARI morbidity in adults and children in community-based settings in LMICs. We stratified data into childcare, school and domestic settings and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess evidence quality.

RESULTS

We identified 14 cluster RCTs evaluating hand-hygiene interventions in LMICs with considerable heterogeneity in setting, size, intervention delivery and duration. We found reduced ARI-related absenteeism and illness in childcare settings (low- to moderate-quality evidence). In school settings, we found reduced ARI-related absenteeism and laboratory-confirmed influenza (moderate- to high-quality evidence), but no reduction in ARI illness (low-quality evidence). In domestic settings, we found reduced ARI illness and pneumonia amongst children in urban settlements (high-quality evidence) but not in rural settlements (low-quality evidence), and no effect on secondary transmission of influenza in households (moderate-quality evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that hand-hygiene interventions delivered in childcare, school and domestic settings can reduce ARI morbidity, but effectiveness varies according to setting, intervention target and intervention compliance. Further studies are needed to develop, deliver and evaluate targeted and sustainable hygiene interventions in LMICs.

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

Evidence of the impact of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) in schools (WinS) interventions on pupil absence and health is mixed. Few WinS evaluations rigorously report on output and outcome measures that allow for comparisons of effectiveness between interventions to be made, or for an understanding of why programs succeed. The Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene for Health and Education in Laotian Primary Schools (WASH HELPS) study was a randomized controlled trial designed to measure the impact of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) Laos WinS project on child health and education. We also measured the sustainability of intervention outputs and outcomes, and analyzed the effectiveness of group hygiene activities on behavior change and habit formation. Here, we present the design and intermediate results from this study. We found the WinS project improved the WASH environment in intervention schools; 87.8% of schools received the intervention per design. School-level adherence to outputs was lower; on average, schools met 61.4% of adherence-related criteria. The WinS project produced positive changes in pupils' school WASH behaviors, specifically increasing toilet use and daily group handwashing. Daily group hygiene activities are effective strategies to improve school WASH behaviors, but a complementary strategy needs to be concurrently promoted for effective and sustained individual handwashing practice at critical times.

Evaluation of Student Handwashing Practices During a School-Based Hygiene Program in Rural Western Kenya, 2007

Unsafe drinking water and inadequate handwashing facilities in primary schools increase the risk of absenteeism due to diarrhea and respiratory infections. To mitigate these risks, we provided 28 schools in rural Western Kenya with handwashing and drinking water stations (containers with lids and taps on metal stands), bleach for water treatment, soap for handwashing, and educational materials. We observed the use of the water stations and assessed teachers' attitudes toward the intervention. Of 151 total handwashing stations, 69 (59%) were observed to have soap and water and treated drinking water 4 months after implementation; observations of pupils showed an increase in handwashing behavior in water stations located < 10 m, as compared with those >10 m, from latrines ( p < .02). In focus groups, teachers reported improved cleanliness and decreased illness in pupils. Teacher training and installation of water stations resulted in observed improvements in pupils' hygiene, particularly when water stations were located <10 m from latrines.

Hand Hygiene Intervention Strategies to Reduce Diarrhoea and Respiratory Infections among Schoolchildren in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review

Effective and appropriate hand-washing practice for schoolchildren is important in preventing infectious diseases such as diarrhoea, which is the second most common cause of death among school-age children in sub-Saharan Africa. The objective of the review was to identify hand hygiene intervention strategies to reduce infectious diseases such as diarrhoea and respiratory tract infections among schoolchildren aged 6–12 years in developing countries. Published research articles were searched from databases covering a period from as far back as the creation of the databases to November 2015. Eight randomized controlled trials (RCT/CRCT) from developing countries met the inclusion criteria. The Jadad Scale for appraising RCT/CRCT studies revealed methodological challenges in most studies, such that 75% (6/8) were rated as low-quality articles. The review found that hand hygiene can reduce the incidence of diarrhoea and respiratory conditions. Three hand hygiene intervention strategies utilized were training, funding and policy, with training and funding implemented more commonly than policy. These strategies were not only used in isolation but also in combination, and they qualified as multi-level interventions. Factors that influenced hand washing were contextual, psychosocial and technological. Findings can inform school health workers in categorizing and prioritizing activities into viable strategies when implementing multi-level hand-washing interventions. This review also adds to the existing evidence that multi-level hand-washing interventions can reduce the incidence of diarrhoea, respiratory infections, and school absenteeism. Further evidence-based studies are needed with improved methodological rigour in developing countries, to inform policy in this area.

A School Health Project Can Uplift the Health Status of School Children in Nepal

Background

School health is effective in helping students achieve health literacy, enhance their health-related behaviors, and thereby improve their health status. However, in resource-limited countries, evidence is limited to show the impact of school health. We determined the association of the school health and nutrition (SHN) project activities on students’ a) health knowledge, b) hygiene practices, and c) health outcomes, one year after the project completion.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study conducted among the schools with the SHN project and without the project in four districts of Nepal. We recruited 604 students from six schools in the project group and 648 students from other six schools in the comparison group. We used a self-administered questionnaire to collect the data, and analyzed them using regression models and a structural equation model (SEM).

Results

Students from the SHN project group reported the decreased odds of worm infestation (AOR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.75) and diarrhea/ dysentery infection (AOR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.97) compared to those in the comparison group. Furthermore, the SEM analysis also showed that the students in the project group were more likely to have better health outcomes (β = 0.03, p< 0.05).

Conclusion

Students in the SHN project group were more likely to have better health outcomes compared to those in the comparison group, even after one year of the project completion. As it can bring about sustainable changes for students, it should be scaled up in other parts of the country.

Effect of a community-led sanitation intervention on child diarrhoea and child growth in rural Mali: a cluster-randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Community-led total sanitation (CLTS) uses participatory approaches to mobilise communities to build their own toilets and stop open defecation. Our aim was to undertake the first randomised trial of CLTS to assess its effect on child health in Koulikoro, Mali.

METHODS

We did a cluster-randomised trial to assess a CLTS programme implemented by the Government of Mali. The study population included households in rural villages (clusters) from the Koulikoro district of Mali; every household had to have at least one child aged younger than 10 years. Villages were randomly assigned (1:1) with a computer-generated sequence by a study investigator to receive CLTS or no programme. Health outcomes included diarrhoea (primary outcome), height for age, weight for age, stunting, and underweight. Outcomes were measured 1·5 years after intervention delivery (2 years after enrolment) among children younger than 5 years. Participants were not masked to intervention assignment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01900912.

FINDINGS

We recruited participants between April 12, and June 23, 2011. We assigned 60 villages (2365 households) to receive the CLTS intervention and 61 villages (2167 households) to the control group. No differences were observed in terms of diarrhoeal prevalence among children in CLTS and control villages (706 [22%] of 3140 CLTS children vs 693 [24%] of 2872 control children; prevalence ratio [PR] 0·93, 95% CI 0·76-1·14). Access to private latrines was almost twice as high in intervention villages (1373 [65%] of 2120 vs 661 [35%] of 1911 households) and reported open defecation was reduced in female (198 [9%] of 2086 vs 608 [33%] of 1869 households) and in male (195 [10%] of 2004 vs 602 [33%] of 1813 households) adults. Children in CLTS villages were taller (0·18 increase in height-for-age Z score, 95% CI 0·03-0·32; 2415 children) and less likely to be stunted (35% vs 41%, PR 0·86, 95% CI 0·74-1·0) than children in control villages. 22% of children were underweight in CLTS compared with 26% in control villages (PR 0·88, 95% CI 0·71-1·08), and the difference in mean weight-for-age Z score was 0·09 (95% CI -0·04 to 0·22) between groups. In CLTS villages, younger children at enrolment (<2 years) showed greater improvements in height and weight than older children.

INTERPRETATION

In villages that received a behavioural sanitation intervention with no monetary subsidies, diarrhoeal prevalence remained similar to control villages. However, access to toilets substantially increased and child growth improved, particularly in children <2 years. CLTS might have prevented growth faltering through pathways other than reducing diarrhoea.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Impact of a School-Based Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Program on Absenteeism, Diarrhea, and Respiratory Infection: A Matched-Control Trial in Mali

We conducted a matched-control trial in Mali to assess the effectiveness of a comprehensive school-based water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) intervention on pupil absence, diarrhea, and respiratory infections. After completion of the intervention, data were collected from 100 beneficiary schools and 100 matched comparison schools in 5-6 sessions over a 14-month period. Data collection included roll calls to assess absenteeism and interviews with a subset of pupils to assess recent absence and disease symptoms. The odds of pupils being absent at roll call were 23% higher in beneficiary schools than in comparison schools (odds ratio [OR]: 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06, 1.42). The odds of pupils reporting being absent due to diarrhea (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.94) or having had diarrhea (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.60, 0.85) or respiratory infection symptoms (OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.86) in the past week were lower in beneficiary schools compared with comparison schools. We found that a school-based WASH intervention can have a positive effect on reducing rates of illness, as well as absence due to diarrhea. However, we did not find evidence that these health impacts led to a reduction in overall absence. Higher absence rates are less likely attributable to the intervention than the result of an imbalance in unobserved confounders between study groups.

Behavior Change without Behavior Change Communication: Nudging Handwashing among Primary School Students in Bangladesh

Behavior change communication for improving handwashing with soap can be labor and resource intensive, yet quality results are difficult to achieve. Nudges are environmental cues engaging unconscious decision-making processes to prompt behavior change. In this proof-of-concept study, we developed an inexpensive set of nudges to encourage handwashing with soap after toilet use in two primary schools in rural Bangladesh. We completed direct observation of behaviors at baseline, after providing traditional handwashing infrastructure, and at multiple time periods following targeted handwashing nudges (1 day, 2 weeks, and 6 weeks). No additional handwashing education or motivational messages were completed. Handwashing with soap among school children was low at baseline (4%), increasing to 68% the day after nudges were completed and 74% at both 2 weeks and 6 weeks post intervention. Results indicate that nudge-based interventions have the potential to improve handwashing with soap among school-aged children in Bangladesh and specific areas of further inquiry are discussed.

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.

Turkey Handwashing Survey: suggestion for taking the ecological model into better consideration

OBJECTIVES

This study is aimed to find out the handwashing habits and their relations to the socio-economic variables.

METHODS

The sampling is determined regarding the address-based population registration system of the country. The multi-staged stratified cluster sampling method was used. It is conducted by a face to face questionnaire with 6854 persons. 22 questions are asked whether they are washing their hands or not related to different situations, the results are graded and the "Handwashing Habits Score" (HHS) is obtained. The reasons for not handwashing were evaluated by categorizing as individual, environmental and combined reasons.

RESULTS

The HHS is increasing in the older age groups (β = 0.148, p < 0.001), females (β = 0.306, p < 0.001), citizens of urban settlement (β = 0.061, p < 0.001), higher education levels (β = 0.191, p < 0.001). The reasons for not handwashing were found as 53.3 % individual, 39.2 % environmental, 7.5 % combined. The frequency of mentioning not washing hands because of the environmental reasons is getting higher in the older age groups, in the urban side, and in the higher education level (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The handwashing habits are shaped by the determinant networks which form a complex structure by intertwining individual, socio-economic and environmental factors in different sub-groups with various weights. This result might contribute to the efforts of conceptualizing the health behaviors with ecological model.

Increased Rates of Respiratory and Diarrheal Illnesses in HIV-Negative Persons Living With HIV-Infected Individuals in a Densely Populated Urban Slum in Kenya

BACKGROUND

Prolonged pathogen shedding and increased duration of illness associated with infections in immunosuppressed individuals put close human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-negative contacts of HIV-infected persons at increased risk of exposure to infectious pathogens.

METHODS

We calculated incidence and longitudinal prevalence (number of days per year) of influenzalike illness (ILI), diarrhea, and nonspecific febrile illness during 2008 from a population-based surveillance program in the urban slum of Kibera (Kenya) that included 1830 HIV-negative household contacts of HIV-infected individuals and 13 677 individuals living in exclusively HIV-negative households.

RESULTS

For individuals ≥5 years old, incidence was significantly increased for ILI (risk ratio [RR], 1.47; P < .05) and diarrhea (RR, 1.41; P < .05) in HIV-negative household contacts of HIV-infected individuals compared with exclusively HIV-negative households. The risk of illness among HIV-negative persons was directly proportional to the number of HIV-infected persons living in the home for ILI (RR, 1.39; P < .05) and diarrhea (RR, 1.36; P < .01). We found no increased rates of illness in children <5 years old who lived with HIV-infected individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Living with HIV-infected individuals is associated with modestly increased rates of respiratory and diarrheal infections in HIV-negative individuals >5 years old. Targeted interventions are needed, including ensuring that HIV-infected persons are receiving appropriate care and treatment.

Hand-to-mouth contacts result in greater ingestion of feces than dietary water consumption in Tanzania: a quantitative fecal exposure assessment model

Diarrheal diseases kill 1800 children under the age of five die each day, and nearly half of these deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa. Contaminated drinking water and hands are two important environmental transmission routes of diarrhea-causing pathogens to young children in low-income countries. The objective of this research is to evaluate the relative contribution of these two major exposure pathways in a low-income country setting. A Monte Carlo simulation was used to model the amount of human feces ingested by children under five years old from exposure via hand-to-mouth contacts and stored drinking water ingestion in Bagamoyo, Tanzania. Child specific exposure data were obtained from the USEPA 2011 Exposure Factors Handbook, and fecal contamination was estimated using hand rinse and stored water fecal indicator bacteria concentrations from over 1200 Tanzanian households. The model outcome is a distribution of a child's daily dose of feces via each exposure route. The model results show that Tanzanian children ingest a significantly greater amount of feces each day from hand-to-mouth contacts than from drinking water, which may help elucidate why interventions focused on water without also addressing hygiene often see little to no effect on reported incidence of diarrhea.

Video surveillance captures student hand hygiene behavior, reactivity to observation, and peer influence in Kenyan primary schools

Background

In-person structured observation is considered the best approach for measuring hand hygiene behavior, yet is expensive, time consuming, and may alter behavior. Video surveillance could be a useful tool for objectively monitoring hand hygiene behavior if validated against current methods.

Methods

Student hand cleaning behavior was monitored with video surveillance and in-person structured observation, both simultaneously and separately, at four primary schools in urban Kenya over a study period of 8 weeks.

Findings

Video surveillance and in-person observation captured similar rates of hand cleaning (absolute difference <5%, p = 0.74). Video surveillance documented higher hand cleaning rates (71%) when at least one other person was present at the hand cleaning station, compared to when a student was alone (48%; rate ratio  = 1.14 [95% CI 1.01–1.28]). Students increased hand cleaning rates during simultaneous video and in-person monitoring as compared to single-method monitoring, suggesting reactivity to each method of monitoring. This trend was documented at schools receiving a handwashing with soap intervention, but not at schools receiving a sanitizer intervention.

Conclusion

Video surveillance of hand hygiene behavior yields results comparable to in-person observation among schools in a resource-constrained setting. Video surveillance also has certain advantages over in-person observation, including rapid data processing and the capability to capture new behavioral insights. Peer influence can significantly improve student hand cleaning behavior and, when possible, should be exploited in the design and implementation of school hand hygiene programs.