Effectiveness of the Swachh Bharat Mission and barriers to ending open defecation in India: a systematic review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

In 2016, nearly 60% of the population of India practiced open defecation (OD), which was 4 times the global rate, and reducing OD in India will be essential in meeting Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6.2 and improving global public health. The government of India launched the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) in 2014 with one key goal for all Indian states to achieve OD-free (ODF) status by 2019. Despite reports from the Government of India on the success of SBM, the true ODF status of Indian states is still unknown. A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted to assess the impact of SBM on OD in India, evaluate the barriers to reducing OD, and provide recommendations for future interventions to reduce or eliminate OD in India. A total of 237 publications were screened, and 22 were selected for inclusion. While the Prime Minister declared India ODF in 2019, studies suggest that the government monitoring system overestimates numbers of ODF villages and toilet coverage. Reasons for households’ continued OD practice include financial constraints, lack of water supply, governmental mistrust, cultural beliefs, and personal preference. Community incentives and penalties have been used to encourage proper sanitation practices with varying success. Overarching strategies and approaches that have worked well across study districts to reduce OD include high involvement of district leadership and innovative behavior-change and local community mobilization campaigns.

Related collections

Most cited references 45

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

Jonathan AC Sterne, Miguel A. Hernán, Barnaby Reeves … (2018)

Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.

0 comments Cited 3698 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Water, sanitation and hygiene for the prevention of diarrhoea

Sandy Cairncross, Caroline Hunt, Sophie Boisson … (2010)

Background Ever since John Snow’s intervention on the Broad St pump, the effect of water quality, hygiene and sanitation in preventing diarrhoea deaths has always been debated. The evidence identified in previous reviews is of variable quality, and mostly relates to morbidity rather than mortality. Methods We drew on three systematic reviews, two of them for the Cochrane Collaboration, focussed on the effect of handwashing with soap on diarrhoea, of water quality improvement and of excreta disposal, respectively. The estimated effect on diarrhoea mortality was determined by applying the rules adopted for this supplement, where appropriate. Results The striking effect of handwashing with soap is consistent across various study designs and pathogens, though it depends on access to water. The effect of water treatment appears similarly large, but is not found in few blinded studies, suggesting that it may be partly due to the placebo effect. There is very little rigorous evidence for the health benefit of sanitation; four intervention studies were eventually identified, though they were all quasi-randomized, had morbidity as the outcome, and were in Chinese. Conclusion We propose diarrhoea risk reductions of 48, 17 and 36%, associated respectively, with handwashing with soap, improved water quality and excreta disposal as the estimates of effect for the LiST model. Most of the evidence is of poor quality. More trials are needed, but the evidence is nonetheless strong enough to support the provision of water supply, sanitation and hygiene for all.

0 comments Cited 213 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Evidence-Based Public Health: A Fundamental Concept for Public Health Practice

Ross C. Brownson, Jonathan E. Fielding, Christopher M Maylahn (2009)

Despite the many accomplishments of public health, a greater attention to evidence-based approaches is warranted. This article reviews the concepts of evidence-based public health (EBPH), on which formal discourse originated about a decade ago. Key components of EBPH include making decisions on the basis of the best available scientific evidence, using data and information systems systematically, applying program-planning frameworks, engaging the community in decision making, conducting sound evaluation, and disseminating what is learned. Three types of evidence have been presented on the causes of diseases and the magnitude of risk factors, the relative impact of specific interventions, and how and under which contextual conditions interventions were implemented. Analytic tools (e.g., systematic reviews, economic evaluation) can be useful in accelerating the uptake of EBPH. Challenges and opportunities (e.g., political issues, training needs) for disseminating EBPH are reviewed. The concepts of EBPH outlined in this article hold promise to better bridge evidence and practice.