Disposal of child faeces: practices, determinants and health effects.

An estimated 2.4 billion people worldwide lack access to improved sanitation. This includes nearly 1 billion people practicing open defecation, of which around 60% reside in India. Even among households with access to improved sanitation, children’s faeces—a potentially important source of disease transmission—are not always disposed of safely (disposal of faeces or defecation into latrine). In India only 20% of child faeces were reportedly disposed of safely in the latest National Family Health Survey (2006). This research has two overall aims. The first is to summarize existing knowledge of the health impact of safely disposing child faeces. The second is to advance our understanding of the scope and possible reasons for unsafe disposal of child faeces among a population in Eastern India. To achieve these aims a systematic review and cross-sectional study were conducted. The systematic review summarized the evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to improve child faeces disposal for preventing diarrhoea and soiltransmitted helminth (STH) infections from 46 studies. The evidence suggested that safe child faeces disposal may reduce diarrhoea. However, the evidence was limited and of low quality. Only 2 studies measured effects on STH, neither found a protective effect. Findings from the cross-sectional study in slums in Odisha, India, were divided into two papers. The first described child faeces management practices and identified potential sources of faecal exposure, highlighting the importance of considering other steps of child faeces management rather than just the place of disposal. The second paper investigated factors associated with being a safe disposal household, where the faeces of all children <5 ended up in a latrine. Significant risk factors were: education and religion of the primary caregiver, number and mobility of children <5 in the household, wealth, type and location of latrine, and defecation behaviours of household members >5

Interventions to improve water quality for preventing diarrhoea

Background Diarrhoea is a major cause of death and disease, especially among young children in low-income countries. In these settings, many infectious agents associated with diarrhoea are spread through water contaminated with faeces. In remote and low-income settings, source-based water quality improvement includes providing protected groundwater (springs, wells, and bore holes), or harvested rainwater as an alternative to surface sources (rivers and lakes). Point-of-use water quality improvement interventions include boiling, chlorination, flocculation, filtration, or solar disinfection, mainly conducted at home. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of interventions to improve water quality for preventing diarrhoea. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (11 November 2014), CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library, 7 November 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to 10 November 2014), EMBASE (1974 to 10 November 2014), and LILACS (1982 to 7 November 2014). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, contacted researchers and organizations working in the field, and checked references from identified studies through 11 November 2014. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and controlled before-and-after studies (CBA) comparing interventions aimed at improving the microbiological quality of drinking water with no intervention in children and adults. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used meta-analyses to estimate pooled measures of effect, where appropriate, and investigated potential sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results Forty-five cluster-RCTs, two quasi-RCTs, and eight CBA studies, including over 84,000 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Most included studies were conducted in low- or middle-income countries (LMICs) (50 studies) with unimproved water sources (30 studies) and unimproved or unclear sanitation (34 studies). The primary outcome in most studies was self-reported diarrhoea, which is at high risk of bias due to the lack of blinding in over 80% of the included studies. Source-based water quality improvements There is currently insufficient evidence to know if source-based improvements such as protected wells, communal tap stands, or chlorination/filtration of community sources consistently reduce diarrhoea (one cluster-RCT, five CBA studies, very low quality evidence). We found no studies evaluating reliable piped-in water supplies delivered to households. Point-of-use water quality interventions On average, distributing water disinfection products for use at the household level may reduce diarrhoea by around one quarter (Home chlorination products: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.91; 14 trials, 30,746 participants, low quality evidence; flocculation and disinfection sachets: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82, four trials, 11,788 participants, moderate quality evidence). However, there was substantial heterogeneity in the size of the effect estimates between individual studies. Point-of-use filtration systems probably reduce diarrhoea by around a half (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.59, 18 trials, 15,582 participants, moderate quality evidence). Important reductions in diarrhoea episodes were shown with ceramic filters, biosand systems and LifeStraw® filters; (Ceramic: RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.53; eight trials, 5763 participants, moderate quality evidence; Biosand: RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.57; four trials, 5504 participants, moderate quality evidence; LifeStraw®: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.93; three trials, 3259 participants, low quality evidence). Plumbed in filters have only been evaluated in high-income settings (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.94, three trials, 1056 participants, fixed effects model). In low-income settings, solar water disinfection (SODIS) by distribution of plastic bottles with instructions to leave filled bottles in direct sunlight for at least six hours before drinking probably reduces diarrhoea by around a third (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.94; four trials, 3460 participants, moderate quality evidence). In subgroup analyses, larger effects were seen in trials with higher adherence, and trials that provided a safe storage container. In most cases, the reduction in diarrhoea shown in the studies was evident in settings with improved and unimproved water sources and sanitation. Authors' conclusions Interventions that address the microbial contamination of water at the point-of-use may be important interim measures to improve drinking water quality until homes can be reached with safe, reliable, piped-in water connections. The average estimates of effect for each individual point-of-use intervention generally show important effects. Comparisons between these estimates do not provide evidence of superiority of one intervention over another, as such comparisons are confounded by the study setting, design, and population. Further studies assessing the effects of household connections and chlorination at the point of delivery will help improve our knowledge base. As evidence suggests effectiveness improves with adherence, studies assessing programmatic approaches to optimising coverage and long-term utilization of these interventions among vulnerable populations could also help strategies to improve health outcomes

Determinants of disposal of child faeces in latrines in urban slums of Odisha, India: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Even among households that have access to improved sanitation, children's faeces often do not end up in a latrine, the international criterion for safe disposal of child faeces. METHODS: We collected data on possible determinants of safe child faeces disposal in a cross-sectional study of 851 children 5 y of age using the latrine for defecation and mobility of children <5 y of age in the household. CONCLUSIONS: Few households reported disposing of all of their children's faeces in a latrine. Improving latrine access and specific behaviour change interventions may improve this practice

How Landscape Ecology Informs Global Land-Change Science and Policy

Landscape ecology is a discipline that explicitly considers the influence of time and space on the environmental patterns we observe and the processes that create them. Although many of the topics studied in landscape ecology have public policy implications, three are of particular concern: climate change; land use–land cover change (LULCC); and a particular type of LULCC, urbanization. These processes are interrelated, because LULCC is driven by both human activities (e.g., agricultural expansion and urban sprawl) and climate change (e.g., desertification). Climate change, in turn, will affect the way humans use landscapes. Interactions among these drivers of ecosystem change can have destabilizing and accelerating feedback, with consequences for human societies from local to global scales. These challenges require landscape ecologists to engage policymakers and practitioners in seeking long-term solutions, informed by an understanding of opportunities to mitigate the impacts of anthropogenic drivers on ecosystems and adapt to new ecological realities

Compensating control participants when the intervention is of significant value: experience in Guatemala, India, Peru and Rwanda

The Household Air Pollution Intervention Network (HAPIN) trial is a randomised controlled trial in Guatemala, India, Peru and Rwanda to assess the health impact of a clean cooking intervention in households using solid biomass for cooking. The HAPIN intervention—a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) stove and 18-month supply of LPG—has significant value in these communities, irrespective of potential health benefits. For control households, it was necessary to develop a compensation strategy that would be comparable across four settings and would address concerns about differential loss to follow-up, fairness and potential effects on household economics. Each site developed slightly different, contextually appropriate compensation packages by combining a set of uniform principles with local community input. In Guatemala, control compensation consists of coupons equivalent to the LPG stove’s value that can be redeemed for the participant’s choice of household items, which could include an LPG stove. In Peru, control households receive several small items during the trial, plus the intervention stove and 1 month of fuel at the trial’s conclusion. Rwandan participants are given small items during the trial and a choice of a solar kit, LPG stove and four fuel refills, or cash equivalent at the end. India is the only setting in which control participants receive the intervention (LPG stove and 18 months of fuel) at the trial’s end while also being compensated for their time during the trial, in accordance with local ethics committee requirements. The approaches presented here could inform compensation strategy development in future multi-country trials

PROTOCOL: Water, sanitation and hygiene for reducing childhood mortality in low‐ and middle‐income countries

Respiratory tract infections and diarrhoea are the two biggest killers of children in low income contexts. They are closely related to access to, and use of improved water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH). However, there is no high quality systematic review that quantifies the effect of WASH improvements on childhood mortality. Existing systematic reviews of WASH improvements measure effects on morbidity, under the (often implicit) assumption that morbidity is closely correlated with mortality. This is at least partly because the impact evaluations on which they are based are only designed to detect changes in morbidity with statistical precision, whereas mortality is a relatively rare outcome. The proposed review will address this evidence synthesis gap, using the greater statistical power of meta-analysis to pool findings across studies

Low-Cost Behaviour Change Interventions to Improve Latrine Use and Safe Child Faeces Disposal in Rural Odisha, India

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funded research via International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) to design and evaluate a low-cost intervention to improve latrine use and child faeces disposal among latrine owners in rural Odisha, India

The sanitation ladder, what constitutes an improved form of sanitation?

This study aimed to assess whether the MDG classifications and JMP sanitation ladder corresponded to hygienic proxies. Latrines were purposefully sampled in urban and rural Tanzania. Three hygienic proxies were measured: E. coli on points of hand contact, helminth at point of foot contact, and number of flies. Additionally, samples were collected from comparable surfaces in the household, and a questionnaire on management and use, combined with a visual inspection of the latrine's design was conducted. In total, 341 latrines were sampled. The MDG classifications "improved" vs "unimproved" did not describe the observed differences in E. coli concentrations. Disaggregating the data into the JMP sanitation ladder, on average "shared" facilities were the least contaminated: 9.2 vs 17.7 ("improved") and 137 E. coli/100 mL ("unimproved") (p = 0.04, p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis suggests that both the presence of a slab and sharing a facility is protective against faecal-oral exposure (OR 0.18 95% CI 0.10, 0.34 and OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.29, 0.92). The findings do not support the current assumption that shared facilities of an adequate technology should be classified for MDG purposes as "unimproved"