23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Community-Led Total Sanitation: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review of Evidence and Its Quality

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          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

          Background:

          Community-led total sanitation (CLTS) is a widely applied rural behavior change approach for ending open defecation. However, evidence of its impact is unclear.

          Objectives:

          We conducted a systematic review of journal-published and gray literature to a) assess evidence quality, b) summarize CLTS impacts, and c) identify factors affecting implementation and effectiveness.

          Methods:

          Eligible studies were systematically screened and selected for analysis from searches of seven databases and 16 websites. We developed a framework to appraise literature quality. We qualitatively analyzed factors enabling or constraining CLTS, and summarized results from quantitative evaluations.

          Discussion:

          We included 200 studies (14 quantitative evaluations, 29 qualitative studies, and 157 case studies). Journal-published literature was generally of higher quality than gray literature. Fourteen quantitative evaluations reported decreases in open defecation, but did not corroborate the widespread claims of open defecation–free (ODF) villages found in case studies. Over one-fourth of the literature overstated conclusions, attributing outcomes and impacts to interventions without an appropriate study design. We identified 43 implementation- and community-related factors reportedly affecting CLTS. This analysis revealed the importance of adaptability, structured posttriggering activities, appropriate community selection, and further research on combining and sequencing CLTS with other interventions.

          Conclusions:

          The evidence base on CLTS effectiveness available to practitioners, policy makers, and program managers to inform their actions is weak. Our results highlight the need for more rigorous research on CLTS impacts as well as applied research initiatives that bring researchers and practitioners together to address implementation challenges to improve rural sanitation efforts. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1965

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Water, sanitation and hygiene for the prevention of diarrhoea

          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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Integrated Behavioural Model for Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene: a systematic review of behavioural models and a framework for designing and evaluating behaviour change interventions in infrastructure-restricted settings

            Background Promotion and provision of low-cost technologies that enable improved water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) practices are seen as viable solutions for reducing high rates of morbidity and mortality due to enteric illnesses in low-income countries. A number of theoretical models, explanatory frameworks, and decision-making models have emerged which attempt to guide behaviour change interventions related to WASH. The design and evaluation of such interventions would benefit from a synthesis of this body of theory informing WASH behaviour change and maintenance. Methods We completed a systematic review of existing models and frameworks through a search of related articles available in PubMed and in the grey literature. Information on the organization of behavioural determinants was extracted from the references that fulfilled the selection criteria and synthesized. Results from this synthesis were combined with other relevant literature, and from feedback through concurrent formative and pilot research conducted in the context of two cluster-randomized trials on the efficacy of WASH behaviour change interventions to inform the development of a framework to guide the development and evaluation of WASH interventions: the Integrated Behavioural Model for Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (IBM-WASH). Results We identified 15 WASH-specific theoretical models, behaviour change frameworks, or programmatic models, of which 9 addressed our review questions. Existing models under-represented the potential role of technology in influencing behavioural outcomes, focused on individual-level behavioural determinants, and had largely ignored the role of the physical and natural environment. IBM-WASH attempts to correct this by acknowledging three dimensions (Contextual Factors, Psychosocial Factors, and Technology Factors) that operate on five-levels (structural, community, household, individual, and habitual). Conclusions A number of WASH-specific models and frameworks exist, yet with some limitations. The IBM-WASH model aims to provide both a conceptual and practical tool for improving our understanding and evaluation of the multi-level multi-dimensional factors that influence water, sanitation, and hygiene practices in infrastructure-constrained settings. We outline future applications of our proposed model as well as future research priorities needed to advance our understanding of the sustained adoption of water, sanitation, and hygiene technologies and practices.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The Impact of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Interventions to Control Cholera: A Systematic Review

              Background and Methods Cholera remains a significant threat to global public health with an estimated 100,000 deaths per year. Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions are frequently employed to control outbreaks though evidence regarding their effectiveness is often missing. This paper presents a systematic literature review investigating the function, use and impact of WASH interventions implemented to control cholera. Results The review yielded eighteen studies and of the five studies reporting on health impact, four reported outcomes associated with water treatment at the point of use, and one with the provision of improved water and sanitation infrastructure. Furthermore, whilst the reporting of function and use of interventions has become more common in recent publications, the quality of studies remains low. The majority of papers (>60%) described water quality interventions, with those at the water source focussing on ineffective chlorination of wells, and the remaining being applied at the point of use. Interventions such as filtration, solar disinfection and distribution of chlorine products were implemented but their limitations regarding the need for adherence and correct use were not fully considered. Hand washing and hygiene interventions address several transmission routes but only 22% of the studies attempted to evaluate them and mainly focussed on improving knowledge and uptake of messages but not necessarily translating this into safer practices. The use and maintenance of safe water storage containers was only evaluated once, under-estimating the considerable potential for contamination between collection and use. This problem was confirmed in another study evaluating methods of container disinfection. One study investigated uptake of household disinfection kits which were accepted by the target population. A single study in an endemic setting compared a combination of interventions to improve water and sanitation infrastructure, and the resulting reductions in cholera incidence. Discussion and Recommendations This review highlights a focus on particular routes of transmission, and the limited number of interventions tested during outbreaks. There is a distinct gap in knowledge of which interventions are most appropriate for a given context and as such a clear need for more robust impact studies evaluating a wider array of WASH interventions, in order to ensure effective cholera control and the best use of limited resources.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Environ Health Perspect
                Environ. Health Perspect
                EHP
                Environmental Health Perspectives
                Environmental Health Perspectives
                0091-6765
                1552-9924
                02 February 2018
                February 2018
                : 126
                : 2
                : 026001
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]The Water Institute at University of North Carolina , Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
                Author notes
                Address correspondence to V. Venkataramanan, 806 Sherman Ave., Apt. 2., Evanston IL 60202 USA. Telephone: (513) 652-1521. Email: vidyav@ 123456alumni.unc.edu
                Article
                EHP1965
                10.1289/EHP1965
                6066338
                29398655
                8b57bfb6-094a-4d05-8227-378b4e4e1041

                EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted.

                History
                : 30 March 2017
                : 21 November 2017
                : 24 November 2017
                Categories
                Review

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article