1 – Trop Med Int Health. 2017 Feb 28. doi: 10.1111/tmi.12861. [Epub ahead of print]
Does targeting children with hygiene promotion messages work? The effect of handwashing promotion targeted at children, on diarrhoea, soil-transmitted helminth infections and behaviour change, in low- and middle-income countries.
OBJECTIVES: To synthesise evidence on the effect of handwashing promotion interventions targeting children, on diarrhoea, soil-transmitted helminth infection and handwashing behaviour, in low and middle income country settings.
RESULTS: Eight studies were included in this review: seven cluster-randomised controlled trials and one cluster non-randomised controlled trial. All eight studies targeted children aged 5-12 attending primary school but were heterogeneous for both the type of intervention and the reported outcomes so results were synthesised qualitatively. None of the studies were of high quality and the large majority were at high risk of bias. The reported effect of child-targeted handwashing interventions on our outcomes of interest varied between studies. Of the different interventions reported, no one approach to promoting handwashing among children appeared most effective.
CONCLUSION: Our review found very few studies that evaluated handwashing interventions targeting children and all had various methodological limitations. It is plausible that interventions which succeed in changing children’s handwashing practices will lead to significant health impacts given that much of the attributable disease burden is concentrated in that age group. The current paucity of evidence in this area however does not permit any recommendations to be made as to the most effective route to increasing handwashing with soap practice among children in LMIC. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
2 – Am J Infect Control. 2017 Feb 24. pii: S0196-6553(17)30041-X. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2017.01.018. [Epub ahead of print]
BACKGROUND: Hand-hygiene interventions are widely used in schools but their effect on reducing absenteeism is not well known.
RESULTS: Our review indicated evidence is available to show hand-hygiene interventions had an effect on reducing acute gastrointestinal illness-associated absenteeism but inadequate evidence is available to show an effect on respiratory illness-associated absenteeism.
CONCLUSIONS: The methodologic quality assessment of eligible studies revealed common design flaws, such as lack of randomization, blinding, and attrition, which must be addressed in future studies to strengthen the evidence base on the effect of hand-hygiene interventions on school absenteeism.
3 – PLoS One. 2017 Feb 23;12(2):e0172734. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172734. eCollection 2017.
Handwashing and Ebola virus disease outbreaks: A randomized comparison of soap, hand sanitizer, and 0.05% chlorine solutions on the inactivation and removal of model organisms Phi6 and E. coli from hands and persistence in rinse water.
To prevent Ebola transmission, frequent handwashing is recommended in Ebola Treatment Units and communities. However, little is known about which handwashing protocol is most efficacious. We evaluated six handwashing protocols (soap and water, alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS), and 0.05% sodium dichloroisocyanurate, high-test hypochlorite, and stabilized and non-stabilized sodium hypochlorite solutions) for 1) efficacy of handwashing on the removal and inactivation of non-pathogenic model organisms and, 2) persistence of organisms in rinse water. Model organisms E. coli and bacteriophage Phi6 were used to evaluate handwashing with and without organic load added to simulate bodily fluids. Hands were inoculated with test organisms, washed, and rinsed using a glove juice method to retrieve remaining organisms. Impact was estimated by comparing the log reduction in organisms after handwashing to the log reduction without handwashing. Rinse water was collected to test for persistence of organisms. Handwashing resulted in a 1.94-3.01 log reduction in E. coli concentration without, and 2.18-3.34 with, soil load; and a 2.44-3.06 log reduction in Phi6 without, and 2.71-3.69 with, soil load. HTH performed most consistently well, with significantly greater log reductions than other handwashing protocols in three models. However, the magnitude of handwashing efficacy differences was small, suggesting protocols are similarly efficacious. Rinse water demonstrated a 0.28-4.77 log reduction in remaining E. coli without, and 0.21-4.49 with, soil load and a 1.26-2.02 log reduction in Phi6 without, and 1.30-2.20 with, soil load. Chlorine resulted in significantly less persistence of E. coli in both conditions and Phi6 without soil load in rinse water (p<0.001). Thus, chlorine-based methods may offer a benefit of reducing persistence in rinse water. We recommend responders use the most practical handwashing method to ensure hand hygiene in Ebola contexts, considering the potential benefit of chlorine-based methods in rinse water persistence.
4 – Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017 Feb 13. pii: 16-0709. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.16-0709. [Epub ahead of print]
Reducing barriers associated with maternal health service use, household water treatment, and improved hygiene is important for maternal and neonatal health outcomes. We surveyed a sample of 201 pregnant women who participated in a clinic-based intervention in Kenya to increase maternal health service use and improve household hygiene and nutrition through the distribution of water treatment products, soap, protein-fortified flour, and clean delivery kits. From multivariable logistic regression analyses, the adjusted odds of ≥ 4 antenatal care (ANC4+) visits (odds ratio [OR] = 3.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.9-4.5), health facility delivery (OR = 5.3, 95% CI = 3.4-8.3), and any postnatal care visit (OR = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.9-4.2) were higher at follow-up than at baseline, adjusting for demographic factors. Women who completed primary school had higher odds of ANC4+ visits (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.1-2.9) and health facility delivery (OR = 4.2, 95% CI = 2.5-7.1) than women with less education. For women who lived ≤ 2.5 km from the health facility, the estimated odds of health facility delivery (OR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.5-4.1) and postnatal care visit (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.0-2.6) were higher than for those who lived > 2.5 km away. Compared with baseline, a higher percentage of survey participants at follow-up were able to demonstrate proper handwashing (P = 0.001); water treatment behavior did not change. This evaluation suggested that hygiene, nutritional, clean delivery incentives, higher education level, and geographical contiguity to health facility were associated with increased use of maternal health services by pregnant women.
5 – Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017 Feb 8;96(2):430-436. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.16-0553. Epub 2017 Jan 2.
Handwashing has been shown to considerably reduce diarrhea morbidity and mortality. To decontaminate hands effectively, the use of running water, soap, and various scrubbing steps are recommended. This study aims to identify the behavioral determinants of effective handwashing. Everyday handwashing technique of 434 primary caregivers in high-density suburbs of Harare, Zimbabwe, was observed and measured as an 8-point sum score of effective handwashing technique. Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were performed to predict observed handwashing technique from potential contextual and psychosocial determinants. Knowledge of how to wash hands effectively, availability of a handwashing station with functioning water tap, self-reported frequency of handwashing, perceived vulnerability, and action planning were the main determinants of effective handwashing technique. The models were able to explain 39% and 36% of the variance in overall handwashing technique and thoroughness of handscrubbing. Memory aids and guided practice are proposed to consolidate action knowledge, and personalized risk messages should increase the perceived vulnerability of contracting diarrhea. Planning where, when, and how to maintain a designated place for handwashing with sufficient soap and water is proposed to increase action planning. Since frequent self-reported handwashing was associated with performing more effective handwashing technique, behavior change interventions should target both handwashing frequency and technique concurrently.
6 – Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017 Feb 8;96(2):421-429. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.16-0304. Epub 2016 Dec 26.
We conducted a nonrandomized trial of strategies to promote soapy water for handwashing in rural Bangladesh and measured uptake. We enrolled households with children < 3 years for three progressively intensive study arms: promotion of soapy water (N = 120), soapy water promotion plus handwashing stations (N = 103), and soapy water promotion, stations plus detergent refills (N = 90); we also enrolled control households (N = 72). Our handwashing stations included tap-fitted buckets and soapy water bottles. Community promoters visited households and held community meetings to demonstrate soapy water preparation and promote handwashing at key times. Field workers measured uptake 4 months later. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions assessed factors associated with uptake. More households had soapy water at the handwashing place in progressively intensive arms: 18% (promotion), 60% (promotion plus station), and 71% (promotion, station with refills). Compared with the promotion-only arm, more households that received stations had soapy water at the primary handwashing station (44%, P ≤ 0.001; 71%, P < 0.001 with station plus detergent refill). Qualitative findings highlighted several dimensions that affected use: contextual (shared courtyard), psychosocial (perceived value), and technology dimensions (ease of use, convenience). Soapy water may increase habitual handwashing by addressing barriers of cost and availability of handwashing agents near water sources. Further research should inform optimal strategies to scale-up soapy water as a handwashing agent to study health impact.
7 – Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017 Feb 8;96(2):446-448. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.16-0513. Epub 2016 Nov 7.
Water sources classified as “improved” may not necessarily provide safe drinking water for householders. We analyzed data from Nepal Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 to explore the extent of fecal contamination of household drinking water. Fecal contamination was detected in 81.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 77.9-84.2) household drinking water from improved sources and 89.6% (95% CI: 80.4-94.7) in water samples from unimproved sources. In adjusted analysis, there was no difference in odds of fecal contamination of household drinking water between improved and unimproved sources. We observed significantly lower odds of fecal contamination of drinking water in households in higher wealth quintiles, where soap and water were available for handwashing and in households employing water treatment. The extent of contamination of drinking water as observed in this study highlights the huge amount of effort required to ensure the provision of safely managed water in Nepal by 2030 as aimed in sustainable development goals.
8 – BMC Public Health. 2017 Feb 8;17(1):178. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4078-1.
BACKGROUND: Safe management of faeces (SMoF) and environmental contamination by faecal pathogens have been extensively researched although the SMoF in under-five children has been perennially neglected perhaps due to the misconception that it is harmless. This research, therefore, studied the situation, to determine the magnitude and dimensions of the problem aimed at making policy level stakeholders aware of child faeces management systems and so, inform evidence-based implementation of child and health-related programmes in Nigeria.
RESULTS: The mean age of respondents’ and monthly income (mode) were 30.8 ± 7.5 years and ₦10,000.00 ($28.60). Most respondents were mothers to the under five children (84.7%), had a secondary education (72.0%) and were semi-skilled (57.0%). The caregivers had access to improved water sources (93.7%), improved toilets (64.3%), with 64% and 53.7% having above average scores in knowledge and attitudes, respectively. In the study, 19.7% and 69.0% of caregivers practiced safe disposal of faeces passed by the under five child during the day and at night respectively, though most caregivers (94.3%) omitted steps in the safe management of child faeces chain. The under five diarrhoea prevalence rate was 13.7% and unsanitary passage of child faeces is associated with four folds likelihood of having diarrhoea (p = 0.001). The caregivers whose under five children practiced safe sanitation were rich (p = 0.009) and knowledge was significantly associated with ownership of household toilet (P = 0.037), night faeces management chain practice (P < 0.001) and disposal of anal cleaning materials (P = 0.002). Handwashing was significantly associated with household toilet (P < 0.001), wealth (P < 0.001), under five child defecation preferences during the day (P < 0.001) and at night (P = 0.008).
CONCLUSION:The high knowledge and positive attitudes exhibited by the caregivers were at variance with practice. Where under five children defecate during the day were influenced by the disposal of their anal cleaning materials, distance to the toilet and caregivers’ education. The findings highlight the dangers of unsanitary disposal of child faeces and the need to strengthen the related policies that can increase caregivers awareness and practice at all levels and in all livelihood domains.