Barriers and Facilitators to Chlorine Tablet Distribution and Use in Emergencies: A Qualitative Assessment

Chlorine tablets are commonly distributed for household water treatment in emergencies. However, confirmed use after distribution ranges widely (from 7–87%), which raises concerns about chlorine tablet effectiveness, as measured by acceptance and appropriate use. To investigate chlorine tablet effectiveness, we conducted nine key informant interviews (KIIs) on tablet distribution in emergencies in general, five KIIs on chlorine taste and odor acceptance and rejection specifically, and a literature review on chlorine taste and odor concerns. We found: (1) chlorine tablets are regarded as one of the most effective water treatment methods and are often considered appropriate in emergency response, (2) dosing confusion and taste and odor rejection are perceived as the main problems limiting effectiveness, and (3) the primary solutions suggested for these problems were social and behavioral. We recommend that social and behavioral scientists are routinely integrated into chlorine tablet programming to improve user feedback and behavioral interventions for chlorine tablet promotion in emergencies. We also suggest that more research is conducted on chlorine taste and odor rejection in vulnerable populations, and that improved guidance is developed to facilitate intra-agency coordination and select, promote, and monitor tablets appropriate for each context.</jats:p

Barriers and Facilitators to Chlorine Tablet Distribution and Use in Emergencies: A Qualitative Assessment

Chlorine tablets are commonly distributed for household water treatment in emergencies. However, confirmed use after distribution ranges widely (from 7&ndash;87%), which raises concerns about chlorine tablet effectiveness, as measured by acceptance and appropriate use. To investigate chlorine tablet effectiveness, we conducted nine key informant interviews (KIIs) on tablet distribution in emergencies in general, five KIIs on chlorine taste and odor acceptance and rejection specifically, and a literature review on chlorine taste and odor concerns. We found: (1) chlorine tablets are regarded as one of the most effective water treatment methods and are often considered appropriate in emergency response, (2) dosing confusion and taste and odor rejection are perceived as the main problems limiting effectiveness, and (3) the primary solutions suggested for these problems were social and behavioral. We recommend that social and behavioral scientists are routinely integrated into chlorine tablet programming to improve user feedback and behavioral interventions for chlorine tablet promotion in emergencies. We also suggest that more research is conducted on chlorine taste and odor rejection in vulnerable populations, and that improved guidance is developed to facilitate intra-agency coordination and select, promote, and monitor tablets appropriate for each context

Seeking Clearer Recommendations for Hand Hygiene in Communities Facing Ebola: A Randomized Trial Investigating the Impact of Six Handwashing Methods on Skin Irritation and Dermatitis

<div><p>To prevent disease transmission, 0.05% chlorine solution is commonly recommended for handwashing in Ebola Treatment Units. In the 2014 West Africa outbreak this recommendation was widely extended to community settings, although many organizations recommend soap and hand sanitizer over chlorine. To evaluate skin irritation caused by frequent handwashing that may increase transmission risk in Ebola-affected communities, we conducted a randomized trial with 91 subjects who washed their hands 10 times a day for 28 days. Subjects used soap and water, sanitizer, or one of four chlorine solutions used by Ebola responders (calcium hypochlorite (HTH), sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaDCC), and generated or pH-stabilized sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)). Outcomes were self-reported hand feel, irritation as measured by the Hand Eczema Score Index (HECSI) (range 0–360), signs of transmission risk (e.g., cracking), and dermatitis diagnosis. All groups experienced statistically significant increases in HECSI score. Subjects using sanitizer had the smallest increases, followed by higher pH chlorine solutions (HTH and stabilized NaOCl), and soap and water. The greatest increases were among neutral pH chlorine solutions (NaDCC and generated NaOCl). Signs of irritation related to higher transmission risk were observed most frequently in subjects using soap and least frequently by those using sanitizer or HTH. Despite these irritation increases, all methods represented minor changes in HECSI score. Average HECSI score was only 9.10 at endline (range 1–33) and 4% (4/91) of subjects were diagnosed with dermatitis, one each in four groups. Each handwashing method has benefits and drawbacks: soap is widely available and inexpensive, but requires water and does not inactivate the virus; sanitizer is easy-to use and effective but expensive and unacceptable to many communities, and chlorine is easy-to-use but difficult to produce properly and distribute. Overall, we recommend Ebola responders and communities use whichever handwashing method(s) are most acceptable, available, and sustainable for community handwashing.</p><p><b>Trial Registration:</b> International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Registry <a href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ISRCTN89815514" target="_blank">ISRCTN89815514</a></p></div

Percentage of subjects displaying each aspect of the HECSI score over time.

<p>Percentage of subjects displaying each aspect of the HECSI score over time.</p

Descriptive and Compliance Data by Intervention Group.

<p>Descriptive and Compliance Data by Intervention Group.</p

Logistic Regression for Signs of Transmission Risk at Endline.

<p>Logistic Regression for Signs of Transmission Risk at Endline.</p

Mean HECSI score overall and by intervention group over time.

<p>Mean HECSI score overall and by intervention group over time.</p

Summary of Trial Design.

<p>Summary of Trial Design.</p

Average Concentration and pH of Chlorine Solutions.

<p>Average Concentration and pH of Chlorine Solutions.</p