Interventions to improve sanitation for preventing diarrhoea

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effectiveness of sanitation interventions for preventing diarrhoeal disease

Identifying Potential Sources of Exposure Along the Child Feces Management Pathway: A Cross-Sectional Study Among Urban Slums in Odisha, India.

Child feces represent a particular health risk to children due to increased prevalence of enteric agents and a higher risk of exposure owing to exploratory behaviors of young children. The safe management of such feces presents a significant challenge, not only for the 2.4 billion who lack access to improved sanitation, but also due to unhygienic feces collection and disposal and poor subsequent handwashing practices. We assessed potential sources of fecal exposure by documenting child feces management practices in a cross-sectional study of 851 children < 5 years of age from 694 households in 42 slums in two cities in Odisha, India. No preambulatory children and only 27.4% of ambulatory children defecated directly in the latrine. Children that did not defecate in a latrine mainly defecated on the ground, whether they were preambulatory or ambulatory. Use of diapers (1.2%) or potties (2.8%) was low. If the feces were removed from the ground, the defecation area was usually cleaned, if at all, only with water. Most children's feces were disposed of in surrounding environment, with only 6.5% deposited into any kind of latrine, including unimproved. Handwashing with soap of the caregiver after child feces disposal and child anal cleaning with soap after defecation was also uncommon. While proper disposal of child feces in an improved latrine still represents a major challenge, control of the risks presented requires attention to the full range of exposures associated to the management of child feces, and not simply the place of disposal

The impact of a rural sanitation programme on safe disposal of child faeces: a cluster randomised trial in Odisha, India.

BACKGROUND: Unsafe disposal of child faeces is persistent and may lead to considerable impact on the health of young children. Research is limited on the impact of sanitation or hygiene interventions to improve child faeces disposal practices. METHODS: In the context of a randomised controlled trial to assess the health impact of a programme in Odisha, India, to promote rural sanitation under the Government of India's Total Sanitation Campaign, we explored whether the intervention affected the safe disposal of faeces of children under-5 years of age. RESULTS: At baseline, 1.1% of households practised 'safe' disposal of child faeces, either disposing it in a toilet or by burial. The intervention increased safe disposal of child faeces to 10.4% in intervention households, compared to 3.1% in the control households (RR 3.34; 95% CI 1.99-5.59). This increase in safe disposal is attributable to increases in latrine presence in the intervention communities; the intervention did not change safe disposal practices above and beyond the increase in latrine coverage. CONCLUSIONS: The very modest increase in safe disposal, while statistically significant, is not likely to have consequential health benefit. To achieve open defecation free communities, sanitation interventions will need to develop behaviour change approaches to explicitly target safe disposal behaviours

Child feces management practices and fecal contamination: A cross-sectional study in rural Odisha, India.

Safe child feces management (CFM) is likely critical for reducing exposure to fecal pathogens in and around the home, but the effectiveness of different CFM practices in reducing fecal contamination is not well understood. We conducted a cross-sectional study of households with children <6 years in rural Odisha, India, using household surveys (188 households), environmental sample analysis (373 samples for 80 child defecation events), and unstructured observation (33 households) to characterize practices and measure fecal contamination resulting from CFM-related practices, including defecation, feces handling and disposal, defecation area or tool cleaning, anal cleansing, and handwashing. For environmental sampling, we developed a sampling strategy that involved collecting samples at the time and place of child defecation to capture activity-level fecal contamination for CFM practices. Defecating on the floor or ground, which was practiced by 63.7% of children <6 years, was found to increase E. coli contamination on finished floors (p < 0.001) or earthen ground surfaces (p = 0.008) after feces were removed, even if paper was laid down prior to defecation. Use of unsafe tools (e.g., paper, plastic bag, straw/hay) to pick up child feces increased E. coli contamination on caregiver hands after feces handling (p < 0.0001), whereas the use of safe tools (e.g., potty, hoe, scoop) did not increase hand contamination. Points of contamination from cleaning CFM hardware and anal cleansing were also identified. The most common disposal location for feces of children <6 years was to throw feces into an open field (41.6%), with only 32.3% disposed in a latrine. Several households owned scoops or potties, but use was low and we identified shortcomings of these CFM tools and proposed alternative interventions that may be more effective. Overall, our results demonstrate the need for CFM interventions that move beyond focusing solely on feces disposal to address CFM as a holistic set of practices

Interventions to improve sanitation for preventing diarrhoea

BACKGROUND: Diarrhoea is a major contributor to the global disease burden, particularly amongst children under five years in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). As many of the infectious agents associated with diarrhoea are transmitted through faeces, sanitation interventions to safely contain and manage human faeces have the potential to reduce exposure and diarrhoeal disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of sanitation interventions for preventing diarrhoeal disease, alone or in combination with other WASH interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Chinese language databases available under the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI-CAJ). We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and conference proceedings, contacted researchers, and searched references of included studies. The last search date was 16 February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs), and matched cohort studies of interventions aimed at introducing or expanding the coverage and/or use of sanitation facilities in children and adults in any country or population. Our primary outcome of interest was diarrhoea and secondary outcomes included dysentery (bloody diarrhoea), persistent diarrhoea, hospital or clinical visits for diarrhoea, mortality, and adverse events. We included sanitation interventions whether they were conducted independently or in combination with other interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligible studies, extracted relevant data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used meta-analyses to estimate pooled measures of effect, described results narratively, and investigated potential sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-one studies met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 238,535 participants. Of these, 50 studies had sufficient information to be included in quantitative meta-analysis, including 17 cluster-RCTs and 33 studies with non-randomized study designs (20 NRCTs, one CBA, and 12 matched cohort studies). Most were conducted in LMICs and 86% were conducted in whole or part in rural areas. Studies covered three broad types of interventions: (1) providing access to any sanitation facility to participants without existing access practising open defecation, (2) improving participants' existing sanitation facility, or (3) behaviour change messaging to improve sanitation access or practices without providing hardware or subsidy, although many studies overlapped multiple categories. There was substantial heterogeneity amongst individual study results for all types of interventions. Providing access to any sanitation facility Providing access to sanitation facilities was evaluated in seven cluster-RCTs, and may reduce diarrhoea prevalence in all age groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.08; 7 trials, 40,129 participants, low-certainty evidence). In children under five years, access may have little or no effect on diarrhoea prevalence (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.16, 4 trials, 16,215 participants, low-certainty evidence). Additional analysis in non-randomized studies was generally consistent with these findings. Pooled estimates across randomized and non-randomized studies provided similar protective estimates (all ages: RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94; 15 studies, 73,511 participants; children < 5 years: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; 11 studies, 25,614 participants).  Sanitation facility improvement Interventions designed to improve existing sanitation facilities were evaluated in three cluster-RCTs in children under five and may reduce diarrhoea prevalence (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06; 3 trials, 14,900 participants, low-certainty evidence). However, some of these interventions, such as sewerage connection, are not easily randomized. Non-randomized studies across participants of all ages provided estimates that improving sanitation facilities may reduce diarrhoea, but may be subject to confounding (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.74; 23 studies, 117,639 participants, low-certainty evidence). Pooled estimates across randomized and non-randomized studies provided similar protective estimates (all ages: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.78; 26 studies, 132,539 participants; children < 5 years: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91, 12 studies, 23,353 participants).  Behaviour change messaging only (no hardware or subsidy provided) Strategies to promote behaviour change to construct, upgrade, or use sanitation facilities were evaluated in seven cluster-RCTs in children under five, and probably reduce diarrhoea prevalence (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; 7 studies, 28,909 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Additional analysis from two non-randomized studies found no effect, though with very high uncertainty. Pooled estimates across randomized and non-randomized studies provided similar protective estimates (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01; 9 studies, 31,080 participants). No studies measured the effects of this type of intervention in older populations.  Any sanitation intervention A pooled analysis of cluster-RCTs across all sanitation interventions demonstrated that the interventions may reduce diarrhoea prevalence in all ages (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.95, 17 trials, 83,938 participants, low-certainty evidence) and children under five (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.97; 14 trials, 60,024 participants, low-certainty evidence). Non-randomized comparisons also demonstrated a protective effect, but may be subject to confounding. Pooled estimates across randomized and non-randomized studies provided similar protective estimates (all ages: RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.82; 50 studies, 237,130 participants; children < 5 years: RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89; 32 studies, 80,047 participants). In subgroup analysis, there was some evidence of larger effects in studies with increased coverage amongst all participants (75% or higher coverage levels) and also some evidence that the effect decreased over longer follow-up times for children under five years. There was limited evidence on other outcomes. However, there was some evidence that any sanitation intervention was protective against dysentery (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.00; 5 studies, 34,025 participants) and persistent diarrhoea (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.75; 2 studies, 2665 participants), but not against clinic visits for diarrhoea (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.67; 2 studies, 3720 participants) or all-cause mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.89 to1.09; 7 studies, 46,123 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that sanitation interventions are effective at preventing diarrhoea, both for young children and all age populations. The actual level of effectiveness, however, varies by type of intervention and setting. There is a need for research to better understand the factors that influence effectiveness

Interventions to improve disposal of child faeces for preventing diarrhoea and soil-transmitted helminth infection.

BACKGROUND: Diarrhoea and soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infections represent a large disease burden worldwide, particularly in low-income countries. As the aetiological agents associated with diarrhoea and STHs are transmitted through faeces, the safe containment and management of human excreta has the potential to reduce exposure and disease. Child faeces may be an important source of exposure even among households with improved sanitation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions to improve the disposal of child faeces for preventing diarrhoea and STH infections. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 10 other databases. We also searched relevant conference proceedings, contacted researchers, searched websites for organizations, and checked references from identified studies. The date of last search was 27 September 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled studies (NRS) that compared interventions aiming to improve the disposal of faeces of children aged below five years in order to decrease direct or indirect human contact with such faeces with no intervention or a different intervention in children and adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used meta-analyses to estimate pooled measures of effect where appropriate, or described the study results narratively. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-three studies covering more than 222,800 participants met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-two studies were cluster RCTs, four were controlled before-and-after studies (CBA), and 37 were NRS (27 case-control studies (one that included seven study sites), three controlled cohort studies, and seven controlled cross-sectional studies). Most study sites (56/69) were in low- or lower middle-income settings. Among studies using experimental study designs, most interventions included child faeces disposal messages along with other health education messages or other water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) hardware and software components. Among observational studies, the main risk factors relevant to this review were safe disposal of faeces in the latrine or defecation of children under five years of age in a latrine.Education and hygiene promotion interventions, including child faeces disposal messages (no hardware provision)Four RCTs found that diarrhoea incidence was lower, reducing the risk by an estimated 30% in children under six years old (rate ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.86; 2 trials, low-certainty evidence). Diarrhoea prevalence measured in two other RCTs in children under five years of age was lower, but evidence was low-certainty (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; low-certainty evidence).Two controlled cohort studies that evaluated such an intervention in Bangladesh did not detect a difference on diarrhoea prevalence (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.28; very low-certainty evidence). Two controlled cross-sectional studies that evaluated the Health Extension Package in Ethiopia were associated with a lower two-week diarrhoea prevalence in 'model' households than in 'non-model households' (odds ratio (OR) 0.26, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.42; very low-certainty evidence).Programmes to end open defecation by all (termed community-led total sanitation (CLTS) interventions plus adaptations)Four RCTs measured diarrhoea prevalence and did not detect an effect in children under five years of age (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence). The analysis of two trials did not demonstrate an effect of the interventions on STH infection prevalence in children (pooled RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.65; low-certainty evidence).One controlled cross-sectional study compared the prevalence of STH infection in open defecation-free (ODF) villages that had received a CLTS intervention with control villages and reported a higher level of STH infection in the intervention villages (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.74 to 3.62; very low-certainty evidence).Sanitation hardware and behaviour change interventions, that included child faeces disposal hardware and messagingTwo RCTs had mixed results, with no overall effect on diarrhoea prevalence demonstrated in the pooled analysis (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.26; very low-certainty evidence).WASH hardware and education/behaviour change interventionsOne RCT did not demonstrate an effect on diarrhoea prevalence (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.41; very low-certainty evidence).Two CBAs reported that the intervention reduced diarrhoea incidence by about a quarter in children under five years of age, but evidence was very low-certainty (rate ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.84). Another CBA reported that the intervention reduced the prevalence of STH in an intervention village compared to a control village, again with GRADE assessed at very low-certainty (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.73).Case-control studiesPooled results from case-control studies that presented data for child faeces disposal indicated that disposal of faeces in the latrine was associated with lower odds of diarrhoea among all ages (OR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.85; 23 comparisons; very low-certainty evidence). Pooled results from case-control studies that presented data for children defecating in the latrine indicated that children using the latrine was associated with lower odds of diarrhoea in all ages (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.90; 7 studies; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that the safe disposal of child faeces may be effective in preventing diarrhoea. However, the evidence is limited and of low certainty. The limited research on STH infections provides only low and very-low certainty evidence around effects, which means there is currently no reliable evidence that interventions to improve safe disposal of child faeces are effective in preventing such STH infections.While child faeces may represent a source of exposure to young children, interventions generally only address it as part of a broader sanitation initiative. There is a need for RCTs and other rigorous studies to assess the effectiveness and sustainability of different hardware and software interventions to improve the safe disposal of faeces of children of different age groups

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

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

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

Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Practices and Challenges during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study in Rural Odisha, India.

Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) practices emerged as a critical component to controlling and preventing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted 131 semistructured phone interviews with households in rural Odisha, India, to understand behavior changes made in WASH practices as a result of the pandemic and challenges that would prevent best practices. Interviews were conducted from May through July 2020 with 73 heads of household, 37 caregivers of children < 5 years old, and 21 members of village water and sanitation committees in villages with community-level piped water and high levels of latrine ownership. The majority of respondents (86%, N = 104) reported a change in their handwashing practice due to COVID-19, typically describing an increase in handwashing frequency, more thorough washing method, and/or use of soap. These improved handwashing practices remained in place a few months after the pandemic began and were often described as a new consistent practice after additional daily actions (such as returning home), suggesting new habit formation. Few participants (13%) reported barriers to handwashing. Some respondents also detailed improvements in other WASH behaviors, including village-level cleaning of water tanks and/or treatment of piped water (48% of villages), household water treatment and storage (17% of respondents), and household cleaning (41% of respondents). However, there was minimal change in latrine use and child feces management practices as a result of the pandemic. We provide detailed thematic summaries of qualitative responses to allow for richer insights into these WASH behavior changes during the pandemic. The results also highlight the importance of ensuring communities have adequate WASH infrastructure to enable the practice of safe behaviors and strengthen resilience during a large-scale health crisis