Preventing acute respiratory infections and diarrhoea in child care centres

Hand-washing promotion for preventing diarrhoea

BACKGROUND

Diarrhoea accounts for 1.8 million deaths in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One of the identified strategies to prevent diarrhoea is hand washing.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of hand-washing promotion interventions on diarrhoeal episodes in children and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP), and metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) on 8 January 2020, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Individually-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared the effects of hand-washing interventions on diarrhoea episodes in children and adults with no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We stratified the analyses for child day-care centres or schools, community, and hospital-based settings. Where appropriate, we pooled incidence rate ratios (IRRs) using the generic inverse variance method and a random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 RCTs: 13 trials from child day-care centres or schools in mainly high-income countries (54,471 participants), 15 community-based trials in LMICs (29,347 participants), and one hospital-based trial among people with AIDS in a high-income country (148 participants). All the trials and follow-up assessments were of short-term duration. Hand-washing promotion (education activities, sometimes with provision of soap) at child day-care facilities or schools prevent around one-third of diarrhoea episodes in high-income countries (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; 9 trials, 4664 participants, high-certainty evidence) and may prevent a similar proportion in LMICs, but only two trials from urban Egypt and Kenya have evaluated this (IRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; 2 trials, 45,380 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only four trials reported measures of behaviour change, and the methods of data collection were susceptible to bias. In one trial from the USA hand-washing behaviour was reported to improve; and in the trial from Kenya that provided free soap, hand washing did not increase, but soap use did (data not pooled; 3 trials, 1845 participants; low-certainty evidence). Hand-washing promotion among communities in LMICs probably prevents around one-quarter of diarrhoea episodes (IRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.81; 9 trials, 15,950 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, six of these nine trials were from Asian settings, with only one trial from South America and two trials from sub-Saharan Africa. In seven trials, soap was provided free alongside hand-washing education, and the overall average effect size was larger than in the two trials which did not provide soap (soap provided: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.75; 7 trials, 12,646 participants; education only: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; 2 trials, 3304 participants). There was increased hand washing at major prompts (before eating or cooking, after visiting the toilet, or cleaning the baby's bottom) and increased compliance with hand-hygiene procedure (behavioural outcome) in the intervention groups compared with the control in community trials (data not pooled: 4 trials, 3591 participants; high-certainty evidence). Hand-washing promotion for the one trial conducted in a hospital among a high-risk population showed significant reduction in mean episodes of diarrhoea (1.68 fewer) in the intervention group (mean difference -1.68, 95% CI -1.93 to -1.43; 1 trial, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Hand-washing frequency increased to seven times a day in the intervention group versus three times a day in the control arm in this hospital trial (1 trial, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found no trials evaluating the effects of hand-washing promotions on diarrhoea-related deaths or cost effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Hand-washing promotion probably reduces diarrhoea episodes in both child day-care centres in high-income countries and among communities living in LMICs by about 30%. The included trials do not provide evidence about the long-term impact of the interventions.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL on 1 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 March 2020. We conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis on the newly included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of trials investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. In previous versions of this review we also included observational studies. However, for this update, there were sufficient RCTs to address our study aims.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Three pairs of review authors independently extracted data using a standard template applied in previous versions of this review, but which was revised to reflect our focus on RCTs and cluster-RCTs for this update. We did not contact trialists for missing data due to the urgency in completing the review. We extracted data on adverse events (harms) associated with the interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs in this update, bringing the total number of randomised trials to 67. There were no included studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Six ongoing studies were identified, of which three evaluating masks are being conducted concurrent with the COVID pandemic, and one is completed. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods, but several studies were conducted during the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Thus, studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Compliance with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID-19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). There is uncertainty over the effects of N95/P2 respirators when compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcomes of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; very low-certainty evidence; 3 trials; 7779 participants) and ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). The evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). Restricting the pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies. One ongoing study recruiting 576 people compares N95/P2 respirators with medical surgical masks for healthcare workers during COVID-19. Hand hygiene compared to control Settings included schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. In a comparison of hand hygiene interventions with control (no intervention), there was a 16% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86; 7 trials; 44,129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 10 trials; 32,641 participants; low-certainty evidence) and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials; 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence) suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled all 16 trials (61,372 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. The pooled data showed that hand hygiene may offer a benefit with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. Few trials measured and reported harms. There are two ongoing studies of handwashing interventions in 395 children outside of COVID-19. We identified one RCT on quarantine/physical distancing. Company employees in Japan were asked to stay at home if household members had ILI symptoms. Overall fewer people in the intervention group contracted influenza compared with workers in the control group (2.75% versus 3.18%; hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). However, those who stayed at home with their infected family members were 2.17 times more likely to be infected. We found no RCTs on eye protection, gowns and gloves, or screening at entry ports.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID-19 pandemic. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low-moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Children Attending Day Care Centers are a Year-round Reservoir of Gastrointestinal Viruses

Viral gastroenteritis causes high morbidity worldwide. In this study, stool samples from 179 children aged 0–6 years attending Danish day care centers were investigated for gastrointestinal viruses. Each child was observed for one year with submission of samples and questionnaires every two months. Adenovirus, norovirus, rotavirus, and sapovirus were detected in samples using real-time PCR. A total of 229 (33%) of the 688 samples collected tested positive for at least one virus. At the first sampling point, adenovirus was shed by 6%, norovirus genotype I by 3% and genotype II by 12%, rotavirus A by 9%, and sapovirus by 21% of the 142 children included in the risk factor analyses. Increasing age was identified as a protective factor against testing positive for gastrointestinal virus, whereas nausea during the previous two months was positively associated with testing positive. Odds of shedding adenovirus were 9.6 times higher among children treated with antibiotics within the previous two months than among children who were not. Gastrointestinal viruses were shed year-round and high viral loads were observed in samples from both symptomatic and asymptomatic children, suggesting children in day care as a reservoir and a possible source of spreading of viruses into the community.

Hand washing promotion for preventing diarrhoea

BACKGROUND

Diarrhoea accounts for 1.8 million deaths in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One of the identified strategies to prevent diarrhoea is hand washing.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of hand washing promotion interventions on diarrhoeal episodes in children and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (27 May 2015); CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 5); MEDLINE (1966 to 27 May 2015); EMBASE (1974 to 27 May 2015); LILACS (1982 to 27 May 2015); PsycINFO (1967 to 27 May 2015); Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index (1981 to 27 May 2015); ERIC (1966 to 27 May 2015); SPECTR (2000 to 27 May 2015); Bibliomap (1990 to 27 May 2015); RoRe, The Grey Literature (2002 to 27 May 2015); World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), and reference lists of articles up to 27 May 2015. We also contacted researchers and organizations in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Individually randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared the effects of hand washing interventions on diarrhoea episodes in children and adults with no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We stratified the analyses for child day-care centres or schools, community, and hospital-based settings. Where appropriate, incidence rate ratios (IRR) were pooled using the generic inverse variance method and random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 RCTs: 12 trials from child day-care centres or schools in mainly high-income countries (54,006 participants), nine community-based trials in LMICs (15,303 participants), and one hospital-based trial among people with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) (148 participants).Hand washing promotion (education activities, sometimes with provision of soap) at child day-care facilities or schools prevents around one-third of diarrhoea episodes in high income countries (rate ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; nine trials, 4664 participants, high quality evidence), and may prevent a similar proportion in LMICs but only two trials from urban Egypt and Kenya have evaluated this (rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; two trials, 45,380 participants, low quality evidence). Only three trials reported measures of behaviour change and the methods of data collection were susceptible to bias. In one trial from the USA hand washing behaviour was reported to improve; and in the trial from Kenya that provided free soap, hand washing did not increase, but soap use did (data not pooled; three trials, 1845 participants, low quality evidence).Hand washing promotion among communities in LMICs probably prevents around one-quarter of diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.83; eight trials, 14,726 participants, moderate quality evidence). However, six of these eight trials were from Asian settings, with only single trials from South America and sub-Saharan Africa. In six trials, soap was provided free alongside hand washing education, and the overall average effect size was larger than in the two trials which did not provide soap (soap provided: rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78; six trials, 11,422 participants; education only: rate ratio: 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; two trials, 3304 participants). There was increased hand washing at major prompts (before eating/cooking, after visiting the toilet or cleaning the baby's bottom), and increased compliance to hand hygiene procedure (behavioural outcome) in the intervention groups than the control in community trials (data not pooled: three trials, 3490 participants, high quality evidence).Hand washing promotion for the one trial conducted in a hospital among high-risk population showed significant reduction in mean episodes of diarrhoea (1.68 fewer) in the intervention group (Mean difference 1.68, 95% CI 1.93 to 1.43; one trial, 148 participants, moderate quality evidence). There was increase in hand washing frequency, seven times per day in the intervention group versus three times in the control in this hospital trial (one trial, 148 participants, moderate quality evidence).We found no trials evaluating or reporting the effects of hand washing promotions on diarrhoea-related deaths, all-cause-under five mortality, or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Hand washing promotion probably reduces diarrhoea episodes in both child day-care centres in high-income countries and among communities living in LMICs by about 30%. However, less is known about how to help people maintain hand washing habits in the longer term.

Where science meets policy: comparing longitudinal and cross-sectional designs to address diarrhoeal disease burden in the developing world

BACKGROUND

Longitudinal studies are considered preferable to cross-sectional studies for informing public health policy. However, when resources are limited, the trade-off between an accurate cross-section of the population and an understanding of the temporal variation should be optimized. When risk factors vary more across space at a fixed moment in time than at a fixed location across time, cross-sectional studies will tend to give more precise estimates of risk factor effects and thus may be a better source of data for policy judgments.

METHODS

We conducted a diarrhoeal disease surveillance of 5616 individuals within 19 Ecuadorian villages. This data set was used to mimic cross-sectional and longitudinal studies by restricting focus to a single week and a single village, respectively. We compared the variability in risk factor effect estimates produced from each type of study.

RESULTS

For household risk factors, the effect estimates produced by the longitudinal studies were more variable than their cross-sectional counterparts, which can be explained by greater spatial than temporal variability in the risk factor distribution. For example, the effect estimate of improved sanitation was almost twice as variable in longitudinal studies.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, cross-sectional designs yielded more consistent evaluations of diarrhoea disease risk factors when those factors varied more between villages than over time. Cross-sectional studies can provide information that is representative across large geographic regions and therefore can provide insight for local, regional and national policy decisions. The value of the cross-sectional study should be reconsidered in the public health community.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections like influenza or severe acute respiratory syndrome pose a global threat. Antiviral drugs and vaccinations may be insufficient to prevent their spread.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2010, Issue 3), which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to October 2010), OLDMEDLINE (1950 to 1965), EMBASE (1990 to October 2010), CINAHL (1982 to October 2010), LILACS (2008 to October 2010), Indian MEDLARS (2008 to October 2010) and IMSEAR (2008 to October 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

In this update, two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria to all identified and retrieved articles and extracted data. We scanned 3775 titles, excluded 3560 and retrieved full papers of 215 studies, to include 66 papers of 67 studies. We included physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection, hand hygiene) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohorts, case-controls, before-after and time series studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used a standardised form to assess trial eligibility. We assessed RCTs by randomisation method, allocation generation, concealment, blinding and follow up. We assessed non-RCTs for potential confounders and classified them as low, medium and high risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 67 studies including randomised controlled trials and observational studies with a mixed risk of bias. A total number of participants is not included as the total would be made up of a heterogenous set of observations (participant people, observations on participants and countries (object of some studies)). The risk of bias for five RCTs and most cluster-RCTs was high. Observational studies were of mixed quality. Only case-control data were sufficiently homogeneous to allow meta-analysis. The highest quality cluster-RCTs suggest respiratory virus spread can be prevented by hygienic measures, such as handwashing, especially around younger children. Benefit from reduced transmission from children to household members is broadly supported also in other study designs where the potential for confounding is greater. Nine case-control studies suggested implementing transmission barriers, isolation and hygienic measures are effective at containing respiratory virus epidemics. Surgical masks or N95 respirators were the most consistent and comprehensive supportive measures. N95 respirators were non-inferior to simple surgical masks but more expensive, uncomfortable and irritating to skin. Adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to decrease respiratory disease transmission remains uncertain. Global measures, such as screening at entry ports, led to a non-significant marginal delay in spread. There was limited evidence that social distancing was effective, especially if related to the risk of exposure.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Simple and low-cost interventions would be useful for reducing transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. Routine long-term implementation of some measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of an epidemic.

Cochrane Review: Interventions for the interruption or reduction of the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics such as of influenza or severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pose a significant threat. Antiviral drugs and vaccination may not be adequate to prevent catastrophe in such an event.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence of effectiveness of interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses (excluding vaccines and antiviral drugs, which have been previously reviewed).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, issue 4); MEDLINE (1966 to November 2006); OLDMEDLINE (1950 to 1965); EMBASE (1990 to November 2006); and CINAHL (1982 to November 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We scanned 2300 titles, excluded 2162 and retrieved the full papers of 138 trials, including 49 papers of 51 studies. The quality of three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was poor; as were most cluster RCTs. The observational studies were of mixed quality. We were only able to meta-analyse case-control data. We searched for any interventions to prevent viral transmission of respiratory viruses (isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection and hygiene). Study design included RCTs, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-over studies, before-after, and time series studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We scanned the titles, abstracts and full text articles using a standardised form to assess eligibility. RCTs were assessed according to randomisation method, allocation generation, concealment, blinding, and follow up. Non-RCTs were assessed for the presence of potential confounders and classified as low, medium, and high risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

The highest quality cluster RCTs suggest respiratory virus spread can be prevented by hygienic measures around younger children. Additional benefit from reduced transmission from children to other household members is broadly supported in results of other study designs, where the potential for confounding is greater. The six case-control studies suggested that implementing barriers to transmission, isolation, and hygienic measures are effective at containing respiratory virus epidemics. We found limited evidence that the more uncomfortable and expensive N95 masks were superior to simple surgical masks. The incremental effect of adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to decrease respiratory disease remains uncertain. The lack of proper evaluation of global measures such as screening at entry ports and social distancing prevent firm conclusions about these measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Many simple and probably low-cost interventions would be useful for reducing the transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. Routine long-term implementation of some of the measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of a looming epidemic.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses Although respiratory viruses usually only cause minor disease, they can cause epidemics. Approximately 10% to 15% of people worldwide contract influenza annually, with attack rates as high as 50% during major epidemics. Global pandemic viral infections have been devastating because of their wide spread. In 2003 the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic affected ˜8,000 people, killed 780, and caused an enormous social and economic crisis. A new avian influenza pandemic caused by the H5N1 strain might be more catastrophic. Single measures (particularly the use of vaccines or antiviral drugs) may be insufficient to interrupt the spread.We found 51 studies including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with a mixed risk of bias.Respiratory virus spread might be prevented by hygienic measures around younger children. These might also reduce transmission from children to other household members. Implementing barriers to transmission, isolation, and hygienic measures may be effective at containing respiratory virus epidemics. There was limited evidence that (more uncomfortable and expensive) N95 masks were superior to simple ones. Adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing is of uncertain benefit. There is insufficient evaluation of global measures such as screening at entry ports and social distancing.

Maternal and birth attendant hand washing and neonatal mortality in southern Nepal

BACKGROUND

More than 95% of neonatal deaths occur in developing countries, approximately 50% at home. Few data are available on the impact of hand-washing practices by birth attendants or caretakers on neonatal mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relationship between birth attendant and maternal hand-washing practices and neonatal mortality in rural Nepal.

DESIGN

Observational prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Sarlahi District in rural southern Nepal.

PARTICIPANTS

Newborn infants were originally enrolled in a community-based trial assessing the effect of skin and/or umbilical cord cleansing with chlorhexidine on neonatal mortality in southern Nepal. A total of 23,662 newborns were enrolled and observed through 28 days of life.

MAIN EXPOSURES

Questionnaires were administered to mothers on days 1 and 14 after delivery to identify care practices and risk factors for mortality and infection. Three hand-washing categories were defined: (1) birth attendant hand washing with soap and water before assisting with delivery, (2) maternal hand washing with soap and water or antiseptic before handling the baby, and (3) combined birth attendant and maternal hand washing.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Mortality within the neonatal period.

RESULTS

Birth attendant hand washing was related to a statistically significant lower mortality rate among neonates (adjusted relative risk [RR] = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.99), as was maternal hand washing (adjusted RR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38-0.82). There was a 41% lower mortality rate among neonates exposed to both hand-washing practices (adjusted RR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Birth attendant and maternal hand washing with soap and water were associated with significantly lower rates of neonatal mortality. Measures to improve or promote birth attendant and maternal hand washing could improve neonatal survival rates.

Day care center characteristics and children's respiratory health

Day care centers provide an important exposure arena with potential harmful health effects for children. This study has linked health effect data from a survey among 942 3-5-year-old Oslo children with information on day care center characteristics collected during inspection of the 175 day care centers these children attended. The aim of the study was to estimate associations between dampness problems and other building characteristics and several respiratory health outcomes. Dampness problems (sign of molds, water leakage, damage to floor/wall) were observed in 51% of the day care centers. In multiple logistic regression analyses none of the studied symptoms and diseases (nightly cough, blocked or runny nose without common cold, wheeze, heavy breathing or chest tightness, the common cold, tonsillitis/pharyngitis, otitis media, bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma, and allergic rhinitis) were systematically associated with dampness problems or type of ventilation in day care centers. None of the studied indicators of day care center exposures were found to have a clear effect on day care children's respiratory health. Even so this study does not rule out negative health effects of day care center exposures. The study demonstrates that population-based studies of these relations are demanding with regard to assessment of exposure and health outcomes.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Simple and easy-to-register indicators of exposures like dampness problems and type of ventilation assessed in 175 day care centers were not related to respiratory health among 3-5-year-old Norwegian children attending the day care centers. The study does not rule out negative health effects of day care center exposures, but demonstrates methodological challenges needed to be addressed in studies of health effects of the day care environment.

Is hygiene promotion cost-effective? A case study in Burkina Faso

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of a large-scale urban hygiene promotion programme in terms of reducing the incidence of childhood diarrhoeal disease in Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso.

METHODS

Total and incremental costs of the programme were estimated retrospectively from the perspectives of the provider, from the households who change their behaviour as a result of the programme and from society (the sum of the two). The programme effects were derived from an intervention study that estimated the impact on handwashing with soap after handling child stools through a time-series method of observing 37 319 mothers. Using data from the literature, the associated reductions in childhood morbidity and mortality were estimated. The direct medical savings and indirect savings of caregiver time and lost productivity associated with child death were estimated from interviews with households and health workers. The cost and outcome data were combined to provide an estimate of the cost per mother who starts handwashing with soap as a result of the programme and the cost per case of childhood diarrhoea averted.

RESULTS

The total provider cost (including start-up and 3-year running costs) was $302 507. Core programme activities accounted for 31% of the cost, administration 40%. The total cost to the 7286 households associated with changing behaviour during the 3 years of programme implementation was $160 125 ($7.3 per year per household). An estimated 8638 cases of diarrhoea, 864 outpatient consultations, 324 hospital referrals and 105 deaths were averted by the programme during this time. Savings to the provider from reduced treatment costs were estimated at $10 716 and savings to the households from averted treatment cost were $9136, resulting in a total saving to society of $19 852, increasing to $393 967 if indirect savings are included. The incremental provider cost per case of diarrhoea averted was $33.8. The incremental cost to society was $51.3 falling to $7.9 if indirect savings are included. If the programme were to be replicated elsewhere, savings in the international research input and start-up costs could reduce provider costs to $26.9 per case of diarrhoea averted. The annual cost of the programme represents 0.001% of the national health budget for Burkina Faso. The direct annual cost of implementing the programme at the household level represents 1.3% of annual household income.

CONCLUSION

Hygiene promotion reduces the occurrence of childhood diarrhoea in Burkina Faso at less than 1% of the Ministry of Health budget and less than 2% of the household budget, and could be widely replicated at lower cost.

How clean is the home environment?: a tool to assess home hygiene

The role of the home environment in the transmission of infectious diseases has been well described in the developing world but has received less attention in developed countries. An increasing focus on home hygiene has emerged in debates regarding the use of antimicrobial products in the home and the potential for development of resistance and in discussions regarding "when is clean too clean" and "what is clean." Studies are clearly needed to further explicate the role of the home in the spread of infectious agents, but before these can be conducted, adequate measurement tools are essential. This article describes extensive psychometric testing undertaken to develop valid and reliable methods and tools to measure home hygiene and focuses on a neighborhood that was primarily Spanish speaking in New York City. The Home Hygiene Assessment Tool described in this article can be used by clinicians and researchers to further elucidate the role of the home environment in the prevention and control of infections.