An investigation of the effects of a hand washing intervention on health outcomes and school absence using a randomised trial in Indian urban communities

A coupled hand and surface hygiene criterion on heterogeneous surface touch networks

Contaminated hands of people and contaminated surfaces of inanimate objects (fomites) can spread microbes that cause enteric and respiratory infections. Thus, hand hygiene and surface hygiene are probably the most widely adopted public health interventions for controlling such infections. However, conclusions of studies on the effectiveness of these interventions are often inconsistent, likely because such studies have examined these interventions separately and thus not detected their interactions, leading to differing conclusions about their individual impact. In this study, it is proposed that hand and environmental surface hygiene (including disinfection) should be coupled to control contamination spread between surfaces, especially within heterogeneous surface touch networks. In these networks, surfaces and individuals have varying contact frequencies and patterns, reflecting the diverse and non-uniform interactions that typically occur in real-world environments. Accordingly, we propose a new theoretical framework to delineate the relationships between hand hygiene and surface hygiene. In addition, the performance of a model based on this framework that used real-world behavioural data from a graduate student office is reported. Moreover, a coupled hygiene criterion for heterogeneous networks is derived. This criterion stipulates that the product of the pathogen-removal rates for hands and surfaces must exceed a cleaning threshold to ensure the exponential decay of contamination. Failure to meet this threshold results in a non-zero steady prevalence of contamination. Furthermore, the cleaning threshold increases as the numbers of surfaces and hands increase, highlighting the significant impact of network structures on hygiene practices. Thus, extensive cleaning may be necessary in crowded indoor environments with many surfaces and occupants, such as cruise ships, to prevent super-large outbreaks of, for example, noroviral infections. Overall, the findings of this study reveal how improved and integrated hygiene control can prevent fomite transmission.

Water, sanitation, and hygiene-specific risk factors of recent diarrheal episodes in children aged under 5 years: analysis of secondary data from the multiple indicator cluster survey (MICS 2019)

Objectives

Access to safe drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene, collectively called WASH, is a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of public health. However, inadequate WASH practices and environments significantly contribute to the global burden of diarrheal diseases, particularly, in children aged under 5 years. Inadequate WASH conditions are the primary drivers of various infectious diseases, including cholera, dysentery, hepatitis A, typhoid, and polio.

Methods

We conducted secondary data analysis using the 2019 Zimbabwe Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey to investigate the specific WASH risk factors associated with recent diarrheal episodes in children aged under 5 years.

Results

A total of 853 (14%) of 6092 children were reported to have experienced an episode of diarrhea in the last 2 weeks preceding the survey. Having insufficient water in the household was associated with 17.0% diarrhea episodes compared with 13.6% in those who did not face this problem. The availability of soap or detergents to wash hands was associated with a risk of diarrhea, with an odds ratio and 95% confidence interval of 1.19 (1.01-1.40), P = 0.033. The use of surface water, including rivers, dams, lakes, ponds, streams, canals, and irrigation channels, was associated with differences in diarrheal episodes, although this was of borderline significance, P = 0.082. Of the children who had a recent episode of diarrhea, 41.0% had their parents or caregivers seeking medical attention.

Conclusions

There is need for an improvement in safe water supply to households and an improvement in health education on the importance of using soap after using the toilet to avoid contamination of food and water.

Development of a pseudo-typed virus particle based method to determine the efficacy of virucidal agents

The ongoing Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has highlighted the threat that viral outbreaks pose to global health. A key tool in the arsenal to prevent and control viral disease outbreaks is disinfection of equipment and surfaces with formulations that contain virucidal agents (VA). However, assessment of the efficacy of virus inactivation often requires live virus assays or surrogate viruses such as Modified Vaccinia Virus Ankara (MVA), which can be expensive, time consuming and technically challenging. Therefore, we have developed a pseudo-typed virus (PV) based approach to assess the inactivation of enveloped viruses with a fast and quantitative output that can be adapted to emerging viruses. Additionally, we have developed a method to completely remove the cytotoxicity of virucidal agents while retaining the required sensitivity to measure PV infectivity. Our results indicated that the removal of cytotoxicity was an essential step to accurately measure virus inactivation. Further, we demonstrated that there was no difference in susceptibility to virus inactivation between PVs that express the envelopes of HIV-1, SARS-CoV-2, and Influenza A/Indonesia. Therefore, we have developed an effective and safe alternative to live virus assays that enables the rapid assessment of virucidal activity for the development and optimization of virucidal reagents.

Effectiveness of handwashing with soap for preventing acute respiratory infections in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory infection (ARI) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally, with 83% of ARI mortality occurring in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) before the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to estimate the effect of interventions promoting handwashing with soap on ARI in LMICs.

METHODS

In our systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Global Health, and Global Index Medicus for studies of handwashing with soap interventions in LMICs from inception to May 25, 2021. We included randomised and non-randomised controlled studies of interventions conducted in domestic, school, or childcare settings. Interventions promoting hand hygiene methods other than handwashing with soap were excluded, as were interventions in health-care facilities or the workplace. The primary outcome was ARI morbidity arising from any pathogen for participants of any age. Secondary outcomes were lower respiratory infection, upper respiratory infection, influenza confirmed by diagnostic test, COVID-19 confirmed by diagnostic test, and all-cause mortality. We extracted relative risks (RRs), using random-effects meta-analysis to analyse study results, and metaregression to evaluate heterogeneity. We assessed risk of bias in individual studies using an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and assessed the overall body of evidence using a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021231414.

FINDINGS

26 studies with 161 659 participants met inclusion criteria, providing 27 comparisons (21 randomised). Interventions promoting handwashing with soap reduced any ARI compared with no handwashing intervention (RR 0·83 [95% CI 0·76-0·90], I2 88%; 27 comparisons). Interventions also reduced lower respiratory infections (0·78 [0·64-0·94], I2 64%; 12 comparisons) and upper respiratory infections (0·74 [0·59-0·93], I2 91%; seven comparisons), but not test-confirmed influenza (0·94 [0·42-2·11], I2 90%; three comparisons), test-confirmed COVID-19 (no comparisons), or all-cause mortality (prevalence ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·71-1·27]; one comparison). For ARI, no heterogeneity covariates were significant at p<0·1 and the GRADE rating was moderate certainty evidence.

INTERPRETATION

Interventions promoting handwashing with soap can reduce ARI in LMICs, and could help to prevent the large burden of respiratory disease.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Reckitt Global Hygiene Institute, and UK FCDO.

Impact on childhood mortality of interventions to improve drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) to households: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs), the biggest contributing factors to the global burden of disease in childhood are deaths due to respiratory illness and diarrhoea, both of which are closely related to use of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services by households. However, current estimates of the health impacts of WASH interventions use self-reported morbidity, which may fail to capture longer-term or more severe impacts. Reported mortality is thought to be less prone to bias than other reported measures. This study aimed to answer the question: What are the impacts of WASH interventions on reported childhood mortality in L&MICs?

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, using a published protocol. Systematic searches of 11 academic databases and trial registries, plus organisational repositories, were undertaken to locate studies of WASH interventions, which were published in peer review journals or other sources (e.g., organisational reports and working papers). Intervention studies of WASH improvements implemented under endemic disease circumstances in L&MICs were eligible, which reported findings at any time until March 2020. We used the participant flow data supplied in response to journal editors' calls for greater transparency. Data were collected by two authors working independently. We included evidence from 24 randomized and 11 nonrandomized studies of WASH interventions from all global regions, incorporating 2,600 deaths. Effects of 48 WASH treatment arms were included in analysis. We critically appraised and synthesised evidence using meta-analysis to improve statistical power. We found WASH interventions are associated with a significant reduction of 17% in the odds of all-cause mortality in childhood (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.74, 0.92, evidence from 38 interventions), and a significant reduction in diarrhoea mortality of 45% (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.35, 0.84; 10 interventions). Further analysis by WASH technology indicated interventions providing improved water in quantity to households were most consistently associated with reductions in all-cause mortality. Community-wide sanitation was most consistently associated with reductions in diarrhoea mortality. Around one-half of the included studies were assessed as being at "moderate risk of bias" in attributing mortality in childhood to the WASH intervention, and no studies were found to be at "low risk of bias." The review should be updated to incorporate additional published and unpublished participant flow data.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings are congruent with theories of infectious disease transmission. Washing with water presents a barrier to respiratory illness and diarrhoea, which are the two biggest contributors to all-cause mortality in childhood in L&MICs. Community-wide sanitation halts the spread of diarrhoea. We observed that evidence synthesis can provide new findings, going beyond the underlying data from trials to generate crucial insights for policy. Transparent reporting in trials creates opportunities for research synthesis to answer questions about mortality, which individual studies of interventions cannot be reliably designed to address.

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 last published in 2020. We 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, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many 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. Adherence 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 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence). 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). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks 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; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting 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 (very low-certainty evidence).  One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.  Hand hygiene compared to control Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta-analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 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 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low-certainty evidence). We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of 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 RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. 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, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. 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, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Vaccine or Garlic-Is It a Choice? Awareness of Medical Personnel on Prevention of Influenza Infections

BACKGROUND

Preventing the spread of the influenza virus is one of the primary health policy challenges of many countries worldwide. One of the more effective ways to prevent infection is influenza vaccination, and the people who enjoy the most public confidence in preventive health care are health workers (HWs). For this reason, it is crucial to study the attitudes of HWs toward influenza vaccination.

METHODS

The survey was conducted among 950 medical (physicians and nurses) and administrative staff in three academic hospitals. Respondents to the survey were selected on a random-target basis to represent hospital employees in the study best. The survey was conducted using the PAPI method between August and September 2020.

RESULTS

Respondents considered hand washing (52.8%) and avoiding contact with sick people (49.3%) the most effective ways to prevent influenza infection. Three in ten respondents considered wearing a protective mask (30.1%) and getting vaccinated against influenza (29.9%) is fully effective in preventing influenza. Influenza vaccination as effective in preventing influenza virus infection was chosen more often by those who worked in a pediatric hospital. Nurses were twice less likely than physicians to declare that influenza vaccination prevents infection (42.4% for nurses vs. 84.0% for physicians). At the same time, 20.4% of nurses believed that eating garlic effectively prevented influenza infection, and 28.1% declared daily vitamin C helpful.

CONCLUSIONS

The study pointed to significant educational gaps regarding the role and effectiveness of influenza vaccination in the process of influenza virus infection and indicated a firm belief in medical myths, especially in the nursing community, related to protection against influenza virus infection.

Effectiveness of interventions to improve drinking water, sanitation, and handwashing with soap on risk of diarrhoeal disease in children in low-income and middle-income settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Estimates of the effectiveness of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions that provide high levels of service on childhood diarrhoea are scarce. We aimed to provide up-to-date estimates on the burden of disease attributable to WASH and on the effects of different types of WASH interventions on childhood diarrhoea in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we updated previous reviews following their search strategy by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and BIOSIS Citation Index for studies of basic WASH interventions and of WASH interventions providing a high level of service, published between Jan 1, 2016, and May 25, 2021. We included randomised and non-randomised controlled trials conducted at household or community level that matched exposure categories of the so-called service ladder approach of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) for WASH. Two reviewers independently extracted study-level data and assessed risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and certainty of evidence using a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We analysed extracted relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs using random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42016043164.

FINDINGS

19 837 records were identified from the search, of which 124 studies were included, providing 83 water (62 616 children), 20 sanitation (40 799 children), and 41 hygiene (98 416 children) comparisons. Compared with untreated water from an unimproved source, risk of diarrhoea was reduced by up to 50% with water treated at point of use (POU): filtration (n=23 studies; RR 0·50 [95% CI 0·41-0·60]), solar treatment (n=13; 0·63 [0·50-0·80]), and chlorination (n=25; 0·66 [0·56-0·77]). Compared with an unimproved source, provision of an improved drinking water supply on premises with higher water quality reduced diarrhoea risk by 52% (n=2; 0·48 [0·26-0·87]). Overall, sanitation interventions reduced diarrhoea risk by 24% (0·76 [0·61-0·94]). Compared with unimproved sanitation, providing sewer connection reduced diarrhoea risk by 47% (n=5; 0·53 [0·30-0·93]). Promotion of handwashing with soap reduced diarrhoea risk by 30% (0·70 [0·64-0·76]).

INTERPRETATION

WASH interventions reduced risk of diarrhoea in children in LMICs. Interventions supplying either water filtered at POU, higher water quality from an improved source on premises, or basic sanitation services with sewer connection were associated with increased reductions. Our results support higher service levels called for under SDG 6. Notably, no studies evaluated interventions that delivered access to safely managed WASH services, the level of service to which universal coverage by 2030 is committed under the SDG.

FUNDING

WHO, Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

A Nutrition Behavior Change Program Moderately Improves Minimum Diet Diversity and Handwashing Behaviors Among Tea Workers in Assam and Tamil Nadu, India

Many workers in global supply chains remain nutritionally vulnerable despite the income they earn. The Seeds of Prosperity (SOP) program was implemented in Tamil Nadu and Assam, India, for tea supply chain workers (estate workers, small holder farmers, and farm workers). The aim was to enhance demand for diverse and nutritious foods and improve practices related to handwashing. The program used a behavior change communication approach wherein participants received weekly 1-hour group sessions with messaging on dietary diversity for 5 weeks and handwashing for 4 weeks. An impact evaluation was conducted to estimate changes in reported dietary and hygiene knowledge and behaviors among women. The study used a longitudinal quasi-experimental design in a subsample of program participants at baseline and post-intervention among both intervention and comparison. There was a small but significant increase in mean dietary diversity (DD) for all 4 worker groups (ranging from DD score changes of 0.3 to 0.7; P < .05) and in the proportion of women meeting the minimum dietary diversity in 2 of the 4 groups. Similarly, a significant increase in the mean number of handwashing moments was observed in 2 of the worker groups. An increase in home garden use was observed in 1 of the 4 worker groups. While the SOP program resulted in improvements in dietary diversity, most tea farming women still do not achieve minimum dietary diversity. Nutritious food access may be an important constraint to further improvement.

Interventions for High-Burden Infectious Diseases in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 2.2 million deaths were reported among school-age children and young people in 2019, and infectious diseases remain the leading causes of morbidity and mortality, especially in low and middle-income countries. We aim to synthesize evidence on interventions for high-burden infectious diseases among children and adolescents aged 5 to 19 years.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search until December 31, 2020. Two review authors independently screened studies for relevance, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.

RESULTS

We included a total of 31 studies, including 81 596 participants. Sixteen studies focused on diarrhea; 6 on tuberculosis; 2 on human immunodeficiency virus; 2 on measles; 1 study each on acute respiratory infections, malaria, and urinary tract infections; and 2 studies targeted multiple diseases. We did not find any study on other high burden infectious diseases among this age group. We could not perform meta-analysis for most outcomes because of variances in interventions and outcomes. Findings suggests that for diarrhea, water treatment, water filtration, and zinc supplementation have some protective effect. For tuberculosis, peer counseling, contingency contract, and training of health care workers led to improvements in tuberculosis detection and treatment completion. Continuation of cotrimoxazole therapy reduced the risk of tuberculosis and hospitalizations among human immunodeficiency virus-infected children and reduced measles complications and pneumonia cases among measles-infected children. Zinc supplementation led to a faster recovery in urinary tract infections with a positive effect in reducing symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

There is scarcity of data on the effectiveness of interventions for high-burden infectious diseases among school-aged children and adolescents.

Nonpharmaceutical interventions to prevent viral respiratory infection in community settings: an umbrella review

Background

Respiratory viruses pose an important public health threat to most communities. Nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as masks, hand hygiene or physical distancing, among others, are believed to play an important role in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses. In this umbrella review, we summarise the evidence of the effectiveness of NPIs for the prevention of respiratory virus transmission in the community setting.

Observations

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Medline and Cochrane reviews resulted in a total of 24 studies consisting of 11 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 12 systematic reviews without meta-analyses and one standalone meta-analysis. The current evidence from these data suggests that hand hygiene is protective against respiratory viral infection. The use of hand hygiene and facemasks, facemasks alone and physical distancing were interventions with inconsistent evidence. Interventions such as school closures, oral hygiene or nasal saline rinses were shown to be effective in reducing the risk of influenza; however, the evidence is sparse and mostly of low and critically low quality.

Conclusions

Studies on the effectiveness of NPIs for the prevention of respiratory viral transmission in the community vary in study design, quality and reported effectiveness. Evidence for the use of hand hygiene or facemasks is the strongest; therefore, the most reasonable suggestion is to use hand hygiene and facemasks in the community setting.

The effect of hand hygiene frequency on reducing acute respiratory infections in the community: a meta-analysis

Hand hygiene is a simple, low-cost intervention that may lead to substantial population-level effects in suppressing acute respiratory infection epidemics. However, quantification of the efficacy of hand hygiene on respiratory infection in the community is lacking. We searched PubMed for randomised controlled trials on the effect of hand hygiene for reducing acute respiratory infections in the community published before 11 March 2021. We performed a meta-regression analysis using a Bayesian mixed-effects model. A total of 105 publications were identified, out of which six studies reported hand hygiene frequencies. Four studies were performed in household settings and two were in schools. The average number of handwashing events per day ranged from one to eight in the control arms, and four to 17 in the intervention arms. We estimated that a single hand hygiene event is associated with a 3% (80% credible interval (-1% to 7%)) decrease in the daily probability of an acute respiratory infection. Three of these six studies were potentially at high risk of bias because the primary outcome depended on self-reporting of upper respiratory tract symptoms. Well-designed trials with an emphasis on monitoring hand hygiene adherence are needed to confirm these findings.

Interventions promoting uptake of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) technologies in low- and middle-income countries: An evidence and gap map of effectiveness studies

Background

Lack of access to and use of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) cause 1.6 million deaths every year, of which 1.2 million are due to gastrointestinal illnesses like diarrhoea and acute respiratory infections like pneumonia. Poor WASH access and use also diminish nutrition and educational attainment, and cause danger and stress for vulnerable populations, especially for women and girls. The hardest hit regions are sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 calls for the end of open defecation, and universal access to safely managed water and sanitation facilities, and basic hand hygiene, by 2030. WASH access and use also underpin progress in other areas such as SDG1 poverty targets, SDG3 health and SDG4 education targets. Meeting the SDG equity agenda to "leave none behind" will require WASH providers prioritise the hardest to reach including those living remotely and people who are disadvantaged.

Objectives

Decision makers need access to high-quality evidence on what works in WASH promotion in different contexts, and for different groups of people, to reach the most disadvantaged populations and thereby achieve universal targets. The WASH evidence map is envisioned as a tool for commissioners and researchers to identify existing studies to fill synthesis gaps, as well as helping to prioritise new studies where there are gaps in knowledge. It also supports policymakers and practitioners to navigate the evidence base, including presenting critically appraised findings from existing systematic reviews.

Methods

This evidence map presents impact evaluations and systematic reviews from the WASH sector, organised according to the types of intervention mechanisms, WASH technologies promoted, and outcomes measured. It is based on a framework of intervention mechanisms (e.g., behaviour change triggering or microloans) and outcomes along the causal pathway, specifically behavioural outcomes (e.g., handwashing and food hygiene practices), ill-health outcomes (e.g., diarrhoeal morbidity and mortality), nutrition and socioeconomic outcomes (e.g., school absenteeism and household income). The map also provides filters to examine the evidence for a particular WASH technology (e.g., latrines), place of use (e.g., home, school or health facility), location (e.g., global region, country, rural and urban) and group (e.g., people living with disability). Systematic searches for published and unpublished literature and trial registries were conducted of studies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Searches were conducted in March 2018, and searches for completed trials were done in May 2020. Coding of information for the map was done by two authors working independently. Impact evaluations were critically appraised according to methods of conduct and reporting. Systematic reviews were critically appraised using a new approach to assess theory-based, mixed-methods evidence synthesis.

Results

There has been an enormous growth in impact evaluations and systematic reviews of WASH interventions since the International Year of Sanitation, 2008. There are now at least 367 completed or ongoing rigorous impact evaluations in LMICs, nearly three-quarters of which have been conducted since 2008, plus 43 systematic reviews. Studies have been done in 83 LMICs, with a high concentration in Bangladesh, India, and Kenya. WASH sector programming has increasingly shifted in focus from what technology to supply (e.g., a handwashing station or child's potty), to the best way in which to do so to promote demand. Research also covers a broader set of intervention mechanisms. For example, there has been increased interest in behaviour change communication using psychosocial "triggering", such as social marketing and community-led total sanitation. These studies report primarily on behavioural outcomes. With the advent of large-scale funding, in particular by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, there has been a substantial increase in the number of studies on sanitation technologies, particularly latrines. Sustaining behaviour is fundamental for sustaining health and other quality of life improvements. However, few studies have been done of intervention mechanisms for, or measuring outcomes on sustained adoption of latrines to stop open defaecation. There has also been some increase in the number of studies looking at outcomes and interventions that disproportionately affect women and girls, who quite literally carry most of the burden of poor water and sanitation access. However, most studies do not report sex disaggregated outcomes, let alone integrate gender analysis into their framework. Other vulnerable populations are even less addressed; no studies eligible for inclusion in the map were done of interventions targeting, or reporting on outcomes for, people living with disabilities. We were only able to find a single controlled evaluation of WASH interventions in a health care facility, in spite of the importance of WASH in health facilities in global policy debates. The quality of impact evaluations has improved, such as the use of controlled designs as standard, attention to addressing reporting biases, and adequate cluster sample size. However, there remain important concerns about quality of reporting. The quality and usefulness of systematic reviews for policy is also improving, which draw clearer distinctions between intervention mechanisms and synthesise the evidence on outcomes along the causal pathway. Adopting mixed-methods approaches also provides information for programmes on barriers and enablers affecting implementation.

Conclusion

Ensuring everyone has access to appropriate water, sanitation, and hygiene facilities is one of the most fundamental of challenges for poverty elimination. Researchers and funders need to consider carefully where there is the need for new primary evidence, and new syntheses of that evidence. This study suggests the following priority areas:Impact evaluations incorporating understudied outcomes, such as sustainability and slippage, of WASH provision in understudied places of use, such as health care facilities, and of interventions targeting, or presenting disaggregated data for, vulnerable populations, particularly over the life-course and for people living with a disability;Improved reporting in impact evaluations, including presentation of participant flow diagrams; andSynthesis studies and updates in areas with sufficient existing and planned impact evaluations, such as for diarrhoea mortality, ARIs, WASH in schools and decentralisation. These studies will preferably be conducted as mixed-methods systematic reviews that are able to answer questions about programme targeting, implementation, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and compare alternative intervention mechanisms to achieve and sustain outcomes in particular contexts, preferably using network meta-analysis.

Association between Handwashing Behavior and Infectious Diseases among Low-Income Community Children in Urban New Delhi, India: A Cross-Sectional Study

Diarrheal diseases and respiratory infections (RI) are two leading causes of childhood mortality in low and middle-income countries. Effective handwashing at critical time-points may mitigate these diseases. However, there is a lack of published data investigating this association in school-aged children in India. This study is part of a larger prospective handwashing intervention study in a low-income community in New Delhi, India examining the associations between handwashing behavior and diarrhea and RI in schoolchildren. This current study reports the findings of the baseline survey administered to 272 mother–child dyads. Children aged 8–12 years, and their mothers, were recruited from six schools. A baseline questionnaire was used to collect sociodemographic data, handwash behavior, and mother-reported recent diarrhea and RI incidence among the children. Handwashing before and after preparing food, after defecation, and after cleaning dishes significantly reduced the odds of diarrhea by over 70%, and of RI by over 56%. Using a clean cloth after handwashing lowered odds of diarrhea and RI by 72% and 63% respectively. Around 60% of the participants believed that handwashing could prevent diarrhea and RI in their children. There was a low prevalence of handwashing at critical time-points and a poor perception regarding handwashing benefits. To improve handwashing behavior, hygiene promotion programs need to understand what motivates and hinders handwashing in vulnerable populations.

Nudge strategies for behavior-based prevention and control of neglected tropical diseases: A scoping review and ethical assessment

Background

Nudging, a strategy that uses subtle stimuli to direct people’s behavior, has recently been included as an effective and low-cost behavior change strategy in low- and middle- income countries (LMIC), targeting behavior-based prevention and control of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). The present scoping review aims to provide a timely overview of how nudge interventions have been applied within this field. In addition, the review proposes a framework for the ethical consideration of nudges for NTD prevention and control, or more broadly global health promotion.

Methods

A comprehensive search was performed in several databases: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL, ERIC and Econ.Lit (EBSCO), as well as registered trials and reviews in CENTRAL and PROSPERO to identify ongoing or unpublished studies. Additionally, studies were included through a handpicked search on websites of governmental nudge units and global health or development organizations.

Results

This scoping review identified 33 relevant studies, with only two studies targeting NTDs in particular, resulting in a total of 67 nudge strategies. Most nudges targeted handwashing behavior and were focused on general health practices rather than targeting a specific disease. The most common nudge strategies were those targeting decision assistance, such as facilitating commitment and reminder actions. The majority of nudges were of moderate to high ethical standards, with the highest standards being those that had the most immediate and significant health benefits, and those implemented by agents in a trust relationship with the target audience.

Conclusion

Three key recommendations should inform research investigating nudge strategies in global health promotion in general. Firstly, future efforts should investigate the different opportunities that nudges present for targeting NTDs in particular, rather than relying solely on integrated health promotion approaches. Secondly, to apply robust study designs including rigorous process and impact evaluation which allow for a better understanding of ‘what works’ and ‘how it works’. Finally, to consider the ethical implications of implementing nudge strategies, specifically in LMIC.

Behavior is at the core of neglected tropical disease (NTD) prevention and control, certainly within low-, and middle- income countries (LMIC) where resources are often limited. Therefore, strategies to promote behavior change should be included and investigated in future efforts. Nudging, a low-cost strategy that subtly directs people towards positive behavioral choices, has recently gained attention in global health promotion. Nudge strategies have been applied to a wide range of health-promoting behaviors such as handwashing. To understand which strategies were used, where and how these were applied, and whether these were ethically informed and implemented, we undertook a comprehensive review of the available sources. This resulted in 33 included studies, with a total of 67 nudge strategies for behavior-based prevention and control of NTDs in LMIC. Only two studies targeted NTDs in particular, the other 31 included studies were focused on more general health promoting behaviors, with the majority targeting handwashing with soap. The most common nudge strategies were those targeting decision assistance, such as fostering commitment and reminder actions. In general, the ethical assessment presented favorable results. We identified the need for robust study designs to better understand how nudges can be implemented in the future.

Soap versus sanitiser for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections in the community: a systematic review with meta-analysis and dose-response analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of hand hygiene using alcohol-based hand sanitiser to soap and water for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and to assess the relationship between the dose of hand hygiene and the number of ARI, influenza-like illness (ILI) or influenza events.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and trial registries were searched in April 2020.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared a community-based hand hygiene intervention (soap and water, or sanitiser) with a control, or trials that compared sanitiser with soap and water, and measured outcomes of ARI, ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza or related consequences.

DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts for inclusion and extracted data.

RESULTS

Eighteen trials were included. When meta-analysed, three trials of soap and water versus control found a non-significant increase in ARI events (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.93); six trials of sanitiser versus control found a significant reduction in ARI events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89). When hand hygiene dose was plotted against ARI relative risk, no clear dose-response relationship was observable. Four trials were head-to-head comparisons of sanitiser and soap and water but too heterogeneous to pool: two found a significantly greater reduction in the sanitiser group compared with the soap group and two found no significant difference between the intervention arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Adequately performed hand hygiene, with either soap or sanitiser, reduces the risk of ARI virus transmission; however, direct and indirect evidence suggest sanitiser might be more effective in practice.

Nonpharmacological interventions to reduce respiratory viral transmission: an evidence-based review with recommendations

BACKGROUND

Viral respiratory infections are a leading cause of worldwide mortality and exert the potential to cause global socioeconomic crises. However, inexpensive, efficacious, and rapidly deployable strategies to reduce viral transmission are increasingly important in the setting of an ongoing pandemic, though not entirely understood. This article provides a comprehensive review of commonly employed nonpharmacological interventions to interrupt viral spread and provides evidence-based recommendations for their use.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic review of three databases was performed. Studies with defined endpoints of subjects receiving one of five interventions (nasal washing, gargling, personal protective equipment (PPE), social distancing, and hand hygiene) were included. An evidence-based review of the highest level of evidence, with recommendations, was created in accordance with a previously described, rigorous, iterative process.

RESULTS

Fifty-four primary studies were included. The most commonly studied intervention was hand hygiene, followed by PPE, gargling, saline nasal washing, and social distancing.

CONCLUSIONS

Mask use and hand hygiene are strong recommendations for prevention of viral transmission. Donning gloves, gowns, and eye protection are a recommendation in healthcare settings. Saline nasal washing and gargling are options in selected populations. Although an aggregate level of evidence is not provided, the authors recommend social distancing.

A Systematic Review for Effective Preventive Public Education of Respiratory Infection

The present study aimed to systematically review to find the best available evidence on the efficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions that have been used in the community so far. Through eight electronic journal database, 9 articles met our inclusion Participants, Intervention, Control, Outcomes, and Study Design (PICOS) criteria based on medical symptoms, interventions, and improvements. In general, interventions included hand hygiene, mask use, health education such as cough etiquette, hand washing and sanitizer methods. In addition, exercise and meditation were performed to improve immunity. As a result, the number of incidents and absences related to respiratory infections were reduced, the frequency and method of handwashing improved, and there were also positive effects in knowledge, attitude/perception, and performance. We concluded that it is necessary to create an environment and systematic support so that organizations or governments can determine healthy behavior at the same time as an individual approach. Furthermore, the follow-up for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions and the monitoring period should be included during the study, consequently resulting in having an opportunity to continuously remind people about health behavior. The community provides information on various types of non-pharmaceutical intervention to maintain healthy management and lifestyles in the public.

Handwashing effect on diarrheal incidence in children under 5 years old in rural eastern Ethiopia: a cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Handwashing with soap reduces diarrheal diseases burden considerably. However, the importance of handwashing in homes has received little attention in rural eastern Ethiopia. The effectiveness of handwashing may be reduced by lack of information on when and in what event hands must be washed, the frequency of handwashing, the individual who should wash his/her hands, and the procedure of handwashing. In these areas, indicators of adherence to handwashing are yet to be established. This study aimed at assessing the efficiency of handwashing on reducing diarrheal disease in children under 5 years old in rural kebeles of Dire Dawa, east Ethiopia.

METHODS

Community-based cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted in rural kebeles of Dire Dawa for 4 months starting from October 2018 to January 2019. Selected clusters were randomized in intervention and control arms using draw method and data collectors conducted the baseline survey. Households assigned to the intervention group were given two bars of plain soap on a bi-monthly basis together with information promoting hand hygiene. Control households were allowed to continue their habitual handwashing practices. We compared the diarrheal incidences of the intervention and non-intervention households. Generalized estimation equations using Poisson family and log choice of the link was employed to calculate adjusted incidence rate ratio with its 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

We recorded a significant lesser diarrheal incidence in the handwashing arm than in the non-intervention arm (6.9 versus 13.8 episodes per 100 person weeks of observation). In all, there was a 41% reduction in diarrheal incidence in the intervention arm in relation to the non-intervention arm.

CONCLUSION

Handwashing with soap complemented with hand hygiene promotion significantly decreased diarrheal episodes in children under 5 years old in rural kebeles of Dire Dawa. We recommend the promotion and adaptation of washing hands using soap at recommended times to be an effective means of reducing childhood diarrhea morbidity in rural populations of Ethiopia towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goal 6.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PACTR, PACTR201807815961394 . Registered 16 July 2018.

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.

Assessment on Hand Hygiene Knowledge and Practices Among Pre-school Children in Klang Valley

Background. Pre-school children are at a higher risk to acquire infectious diseases such as hand, foot and mouth disease due to their immature immune system. Good hand hygiene prevents transmission of infectious diseases. This study aimed to determine the knowledge and practices of hand hygiene among pre-schoolers. Methods. In this prospective, multi-center study, the pre-schools were selected according to the selection criteria. A questionnaire consisting of socio-demographics, knowledge and practices of hand hygiene were administered via face-to-face interview during the pre- and post-intervention period. A total of 435 pre-schoolers aged 5 and 6 years old from 2 pre-schools within Klang Valley, School P (test group) and School C (control group) were involved in this study. The test group was provided with comprehensive hand hygiene education including video on proper handwashing technique during the 2 months intervention period, whereas the control group did not receive any form of intervention. The data were statistically analyzed using descriptive analysis and independent t-test. Results. Majority of pre-schoolers gained knowledge of handwashing from their parents. However, only 63% demonstrated good handwashing technique. Test group were significantly better (P < 0.05) in handwashing technique and hand hygiene routine score. Conclusion. A comprehensive hand hygiene education program should include proper handwashing facilities, resources, and awareness of the care-givers in instilling and sustaining good hand hygiene behavior.

Can Social Motivators Improve Handwashing Behavior among Children? Evidence from a Cluster Randomized Trial of a School Hygiene Intervention in the Philippines

This study reports the impact of the HiFive program, a 6-week handwashing campaign that targets social and emotional motivators to improve student handwashing in primary schools in the Philippines. We designed a clustered randomized trial to evaluate the impact of HiFive on student handwashing behavior, motivation, and access. Of the sample of 196 primary schools located in two districts, half were randomly assigned to receive the program in the 2017–2018 school year. Survey and observation data were collected 3 months after the conclusion of the campaign. In control schools, only 2.5% of students were observed washing their hands with soap and water, our primary outcome and 14.8% were observed washing their hands with at least water. HiFive led to a 3.7 percentage point (p.p.) increase (P < 0.01) in the rate of handwashing with soap and water and a 5.6 p.p. increase (P = 0.03) in handwashing with at least water after toilet use. HiFive also led to a 10.8 p.p. (P < 0.01) increase in the number of handwashing facilities stocked with soap. The program had limited impact on the motivators targeted by the program, suggesting that the small improvements in handwashing may have been driven by increases in the availability of soap. More research is needed to understand how interventions can effectively trigger social motivators to improve handwashing behavior among schoolchildren, and whether the effectiveness of these programs can be augmented with “nudge”-based interventions from the behavioral sciences.

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.

Understanding face mask use to prevent coronavirus and other illnesses: Development of a multidimensional face mask perceptions scale

Face masks are an avenue to curb the spread of coronavirus, but few people in Western societies wear face masks. Social scientists have rarely studied face mask wearing, leaving little guidance for methods to encourage these behaviours. In the current article, we provide an approach to address this issue by developing the 32‐item and 8‐dimension Face Mask Perceptions Scale (FMPS). We begin by developing an over‐representative item list in a qualitative study, wherein participants’ responses are used to develop items to ensure content relevance. This item list is then reduced via exploratory factor analysis in a second study, and the eight dimensions of the scale are supported. We also support the validity of the FMPS, as the scale significantly relates to both face mask wearing and health perceptions. We lastly confirm the factor structure of the FMPS in a third study via confirmatory factor analysis. From these efforts, we identify an avenue that social scientists can aid in preventing coronavirus and illness more broadly – by studying face mask perceptions and behaviours.

The WASH Benefits and SHINE trials: interpretation of WASH intervention effects on linear growth and diarrhoea

Child stunting is a global problem and is only modestly responsive to dietary interventions. Numerous observational studies have shown that water quality, sanitation, and handwashing (WASH) in a household are strongly associated with linear growth of children living in the same household. We have completed three randomised efficacy trials testing improved household-level WASH with and without improved infant and young child feeding (IYCF) on stunting and diarrhoea in Bangladesh, Kenya, and Zimbabwe. In all trials, improved IYCF had a statistically significant benefit, but WASH had no effect on linear growth. In observational analyses of data from the control groups of the three trials, baseline sanitation was a strong risk factor for stunting in the study populations, suggesting this frequently reported association might be confounded by unmeasured factors of household wellbeing. WASH interventions reduced diarrhoea in Bangladesh, but not in Kenya or Zimbabwe. Intervention promoters visited participants six times per month in Bangladesh compared with monthly in Kenya and Zimbabwe; a review of the literature shows that virtually all published studies that have reported an effect on diarrhoea through home-based water treatment and handwashing promotion achieved high adherence by visiting participants at daily to fortnightly intervals. Despite achieving substantial behavioural change and significant reduction in infection prevalence for some enteric pathogens, detection of enteropathogens among children in the WASH groups of the trials was typically at ten times higher prevalence compared with high-income countries. Considering these results, we recommend that future research in the WASH sector focus on developing and evaluating interventions that are radically more effective in reducing faecal contamination in the domestic environment than the interventions implemented in these trials.

Rinse-free hand wash for reducing absenteeism among preschool and school children

BACKGROUND

Illness-related absenteeism is an important problem among preschool and school children for low-, middle- and high- income countries. Appropriate hand hygiene is one commonly investigated and implemented strategy to reduce the spread of illness and subsequently the number of days spent absent. Most hand hygiene strategies involve washing hands with soap and water, however this is associated with a number of factors that act as a barrier to its use, such as requiring running water, and the need to dry hands after cleaning. An alternative method involves washing hands using rinse-free hand wash. This technique has a number of benefits over traditional hand hygiene strategies and may prove to be beneficial in reducing illness-related absenteeism in preschool and school children.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the effectiveness of rinse-free hand washing for reducing absenteeism due to illness in preschool and school children compared to no hand washing, conventional hand washing with soap and water or other hand hygiene strategies. 2. To determine which rinse-free hand washing products are the most effective (if head-to-head comparisons exist), and what effect additional strategies in combination with rinse-free hand washing have on the outcomes of interest.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2020 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, 12 other databases and three clinical trial registries. We also reviewed the reference lists of included studies and made direct contact with lead authors of studies to collect additional information as required. No date or language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status, comparing rinse-free hand wash in any form (hand rub, hand sanitizer, gel, foam etc.) with conventional hand washing using soap and water, other hand hygiene programs (such as education alone), or no intervention. The population of interest was children aged between two and 18 years attending preschool (childcare, day care, kindergarten, etc.) or school (primary, secondary, elementary, etc.). Primary outcomes included child or student absenteeism for any reason, absenteeism due to any illness and adverse skin reactions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Following standard Cochrane methods, two review authors (out of ZM, CT, CL, CS, TB), independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted relevant data. Absences were extracted as the number of student days absent out of total days. This was sometimes reported with the raw numbers and other times as an incidence rate ratio (IRR), which we also extracted. For adverse event data, we calculated effect sizes as risk ratios (RRs) and present these with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for data analysis and followed the GRADE approach to establish certainty in the findings.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 19 studies with 30,747 participants. Most studies were conducted in the USA (eight studies), two were conducted in Spain, and one each in China, Colombia, Finland, France, Kenya, Bangladesh, New Zealand, Sweden, and Thailand. Six studies were conducted in preschools or day-care centres (children aged from birth to < five years), with the remaining 13 conducted in elementary or primary schools (children aged five to 14 years). The included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias in several domains, most-notably across the domains of performance and detection bias due to the difficulty to blind those delivering the intervention or those assessing the outcome. Additionally, every outcome of interest was graded as low or very low certainty of evidence, primarily due to high risk of bias, as well as imprecision of the effect estimates and inconsistency between pooled data. For the outcome of absenteeism for any reason, the pooled estimate for rinse-free hand washing was an IRR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.01; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), which indicates there may be little to no difference between groups. For absenteeism for any illness, the pooled IRR was 0.82 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.97; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence), which indicates that rinse-free hand washing may reduce absenteeism (13 days absent per 1000) compared to those in the 'no rinse-free' group (16 days absent per 1000). For the outcome of absenteeism for acute respiratory illness, the pooled IRR was 0.79 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence), which indicates that rinse-free hand washing may reduce absenteeism (33 days absent per 1000) compared to those in the 'no rinse-free' group (42 days absent per 1000). When evaluating absenteeism for acute gastrointestinal illness, the pooled estimate found an IRR of 0.79 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.85; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence), which indicates rinse-free hand washing may reduce absenteeism (six days absent per 1000) compared to those in the 'no rinse-free' group (eight days absent per 1000). There may be little to no difference between rinse-free hand washing and 'no rinse-free' group regarding adverse skin reactions with a RR of 1.03 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.32; 3 studies, 4365 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Broadly, compliance with the intervention appeared to range from moderate to high compliance (9 studies, 10,749 participants; very-low certainty evidence); narrativley, no authors reported substantial issues with compliance. Overall, most studies that included data on perception reported that teachers and students perceived rinse-free hand wash positively and were willing to continue its use (3 studies, 1229 participants; very-low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review may have identified a small yet potentially beneficial effect of rinse-free hand washing regimes on illness-related absenteeism. However, the certainty of the evidence that contributed to this conclusion was low or very low according to the GRADE approach and is therefore uncertain. Further research is required at all levels of schooling to evaluate rinse-free hand washing regimens in order to provide more conclusive, higher-certainty evidence regarding its impact. When considering the use of a rinse-free hand washing program in a local setting, there needs to be consideration of the current rates of illness-related absenteeism and whether the small beneficial effects seen here will translate into a meaningful reduction across their settings.

Effectiveness of a Behavior Change Intervention with Hand Sanitizer Use and Respiratory Hygiene in Reducing Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza among Schoolchildren in Bangladesh: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Schoolchildren are commonly linked to influenza transmission. Handwashing with soap has been shown to decrease infections; however, improving handwashing practices using soap and water is difficult in low-resource settings. In these settings, alternative hygiene options, such as hand sanitizer, could improve handwashing promotion to reduce influenza virus infections. We conducted a cluster randomized control trial in 24 primary schools in Dhaka to assess the effectiveness of hand sanitizer and a respiratory hygiene education intervention in reducing influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed influenza during June-September 2015. Twelve schools were randomly selected to receive hand sanitizer and respiratory hygiene education, and 12 schools received no intervention. Field staff actively followed children daily to monitor for new ILI episodes (cough with fever) through school visits and by phone if a child was absent. When an illness episode was identified, medical technologists collected nasal swabs to test for influenza viruses. During the 10-week follow-up period, the incidence of ILI per 1,000 student-weeks was 22 in the intervention group versus 27 in the control group (P-value = 0.4). The incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza was 53% lower in the intervention schools (3/1,000 person-weeks) than in the control schools (6/1,000 person-weeks) (P-value = 0.01). Hand sanitizer and respiratory hygiene education can help to reduce the risk of influenza virus transmission in schools.

Integrating Face Washing into a School-Based, Handwashing Behavior Change Program to Prevent Trachoma in Turkana, Kenya

Trachoma is the leading infectious cause of blindness, and facial cleanliness is associated with reduced odds of trachomatous inflammation and Chlamydia trachomatis infection, but there is little evidence of how to drive this behavior change at scale. We report the results of a program integrating face washing into a school-based handwashing promotion program in Turkana County, Kenya. Children aged 5–15 years participated in an intervention delivered to schools in two phases, along with a third phase receiving the intervention after the evaluation, which served as a control. The primary outcome was the number of face washing events that took place when handwashing occurred, which was measured by a 3-hour structured observation at all 67 schools, and a total of 3,871 handwashing events were observed. Differences in observed in face washing behavior between each phase and the control schools were calculated using log-binomial regression with clustering at the school level, whereas survey responses on knowledge of trachoma transmission and prevention were compared using χ² tests adjusted for clustering at the school level. Face washing during handwashing events was higher in schools after 12 months (59.3%) and 20 months (44.2%) than in control schools (18.7%, P < 0.001). Trachoma knowledge was higher in schools evaluated after 12 months (80%) and 20 months (70%) than in control schools (42%, P < 0.001), and knowledge of some of key preventive behaviors was higher in intervention schools. Integrating face washing messages into school-based handwashing promotion programs increased face washing, which may help to prevent trachoma when combined with other interventions.

Effect of hand hygiene intervention on the absenteeism of pre-school children in Klang Valley, Malaysia: a quasi-experimental study

BACKGROUND

Absenteeism amongst pre-school children is often due to illnesses such as hand, foot, and mouth disease, acute gastroenteritis, cold and flu, which are easily spread amongst them. This is because of weak immunity and lack of knowledge on proper hand hygiene. This quasi-experimental study assessed the efficacy of an intervention consisting of a hand hygiene education programme, along with digital tools in bringing about a change in behaviour and health conditions amongst pre-school children in Klang Valley, Malaysia.

METHODS

A total of 377 school children, male and female, aged 5-6 years old, participated and were assigned to either the intervention or a control group. During the 2 months intervention period, children in the test group were trained on proper hand hygiene practices and techniques with the aid of the interactive android-based tablets. The numbers of absent days of all the children were recorded for 2 months before the intervention and during the intervention.

RESULTS

In the test group, there was a 25% increase in the total number of absent days from the pre-intervention period to the intervention period, a much lesser increment observed as compared to that of control group in which the increase was much higher at 89%. Results showed a significant difference (P < 0·05) between the absenteeism rates for the test and control group during the intervention period.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that proper education and intervention increase hand hygiene compliance, which may help decrease school absenteeism due to illness; however, a longer study duration may be necessary to evaluate the benefit further.

Effect of a simple intervention on hand hygiene related diseases in preschools in South Africa: research protocol for an intervention study

INTRODUCTION

Hand hygiene (HH) related illnesses such as diarrhoea and respiratory diseases, contribute to the burden of disease and are included in the top five causes of mortality in children under 5 years in South Africa. Children attending preschools are more susceptible to these infections due to the higher number of children in preschools. HH interventions have shown to reduce HH-related diseases by improving HH practices. In South Africa, there are no documented HH interventions or studies in children under 5 years. The purpose of the study is to determine whether an HH intervention can reduce HH-related diseases among 4-5-year-old preschool children and to improve HH practices in these children, their caregivers and their parents.

METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS

This is a protocol for a controlled intervention study to be conducted at preschools in Kempton Park, City of Ekurhuleni, Gauteng, South Africa. Preschools will be randomly distributed into control and experimental groups (n=70). The intervention includes interactive simulation learning, educational emails and education and poster reminders obtained from the WHO and the Global Handwashing Day website. Data collection, including the intervention, will take place during the calendar year as this coincides with the school year. Data will be analysed both preintervention and postintervention in the experimental group as well as between the experimental and control group. Data collected by means of questionnaires, observations, disease registers, hygiene inspections, semi-structured interviews and hand swabs will be analysed to determine these outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Permission has been obtained from the University of Johannesburg Ethics Committee and Ministerial Consent for Non-Therapeutic Research on Minors from the Department of Health National Ethics Research Council. Permissions for use of copyright protected materials has been obtained. Results of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, and feedback within relevant structures through conference proceedings.

Effect of a School-Based Hygiene Behavior Change Campaign on Handwashing with Soap in Bihar, India: Cluster-Randomized Trial

Changing hand hygiene behavior at scale in the community remains a challenge. The objective of this study was to estimate the effect of Unilever’s school-based “School of 5” handwashing campaign on handwashing with soap (HWWS) in schoolchildren and their mothers in the Indian state of Bihar. We conducted a cluster-randomized trial in two districts. We randomized a total of 32 villages with at least one eligible school to intervention and control groups (1:1) and recruited 338 households in each group for outcome measurement. We used structured observation in households to measure HWWS at target occasions (after defecation, soap use during bathing, and before each main meal) in schoolchildren and their mothers. Observers were blinded to intervention status. We observed 636 target occasions (297 in the intervention arm and 339 in the control arm) in mothers and school-going children. After the intervention, HWWS prevalence at target occasions was 22.4% in the control arm and 26.6% in the intervention arm (prevalence difference +4.4%, 95% confidence interval: −4.0, 12.8). The difference was similar in children and mothers. Observers appeared to be adequately blinded to intervention status, whereas observed households were successfully kept unaware of the purpose of observations. To conclude, we found no evidence for a health-relevant effect of the School of 5 intervention on HWWS in schoolchildren and their mothers. Qualitative research suggested that reasons for the low impact of the intervention included low campaign intensity, ineffective delivery, and a model possibly not well tailored to these challenging physical and social environments.

Effect of Contextualized Versus Non-Contextualized Interventions for Improving Hand Washing, Sanitation, and Health in Rural Tanzania: Study Design of a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Nearly 90% of diarrhea-related mortalities are the result of unsafe drinking water, poor sanitation, and insufficient hygiene. Although “Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene” (WASH) interventions may significantly reduce the risk of diarrheal disease, it is currently unclear which interventions are the most effective. In this study, we aim to determine the importance of contextualizing a WASH intervention to the local context and the needs for increasing impact (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03709368). A total of 1500 households in rural Tanzania will participate in this cluster randomized controlled trial. Households will be randomized into one of three cohorts: (1) a control group receiving a basic intervention and 1 placebo household visit, (2) an intervention group receiving a basic intervention + 9 additional household visits which are contextualized to the setting using the RANAS approach, and (3) an intervention group receiving a basic intervention + 9 additional household visits, which are not contextualized, i.e., a general intervention. Assessments will take place at a baseline, 1 and 2 years after the start of the intervention, and 1 year after the completion of the intervention. Measurements involve questionnaires and spot checks. The primary outcome is hand-washing behavior, secondary objectives include, the impact on latrine use, health, WASH infrastructure, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness.

Effect of an equipment-behavior change intervention on handwashing behavior among primary school children in Kenya: the Povu Poa school pilot study

BACKGROUND

Handwashing prevalence in schools in Kenya is low due to lack of access to water and soap and lack of drive for handwashing. Soapy water made from detergent powder is an inexpensive alternative to bar soap and disgust and social norms change can be powerful drivers of handwashing, but their effectiveness has not been assessed in school setting. In Kenyan public schools, we evaluated an equipment-behavior change intervention's effect on handwashing outcomes. We also monitored functionality of the Povu Poa prototypes to identify design improvements necessary for continued high usage in institutional settings.

METHODS

The intervention included the "Povu Poa", a new type of handwashing station that dispensed foaming soap and rinse water, combined with school-wide behavior change promotion based on disgust and social norms. In this stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial, we randomly selected 30 schools and divided them into 3 groups of 10. Following baseline data collection, we delivered the intervention sequentially (Group 1: 3-5 weeks after baseline; Group 2: 6-8 weeks; Group 3: 19-24 weeks). We observed outcomes [1] availability of handwashing materials at handwashing places, and; 2) observed handwashing behavior after toilet use among schoolchildren) at baseline and in three follow-up rounds. We compared the outcomes between schools that had received the intervention and schools that had not yet received the intervention.

RESULTS

Water and soap/soapy water were available at 2% of school visits before intervention, and at 42% of school visits after intervention.. Before intervention, we observed handwashing with water after 11% of 461 toilet use events; no one was observed to wash hands with soap/soapy water. After intervention, we observed handwashing after 62% of 383 toilet use events (PR = 5.96, 95% CI = 3.02, 11.76) and handwashing with soap/soapy water after 26% of events (PR incalculable). Foaming soap dispenser caps were cracked in 31% of all observations, but were typically still functional.

CONCLUSIONS

Our combined equipment-behavior intervention increased availability of handwashing materials and improved the compliance with handwashing after using the toilet, but handwashing with soap was still rare. Equipment durability must be improved for deployment in schools at scale. American Economic Association's Registry for Randomized Controlled Trials; Trial Registry Number (TRN): AEARCTR-0000662; Date of Registry: April 14, 2015.

Visibility and transmission: complexities around promoting hand hygiene in young children - a qualitative study

Background

Effective hand hygiene practice can reduce transmission of diseases such as respiratory tract infections (RTIs) and gastrointestinal infections, especially in young children. While hand hygiene has been widely promoted within Australia, primary care providers’ (PCPs) and parents’ understanding of hand hygiene importance, and their views on hand hygiene in reducing transmission of diseases in the community are unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the views of PCPs and parents of young children on their knowledge and practice of hand hygiene in disease transmission.

Methods

Using a cross-sectional qualitative research design, we conducted 30 in-depth interviews with PCPs and five focus groups with parents (n = 50) between June 2014 and July 2015 in Melbourne, Australia. Data were thematically analysed.

Results

Participants agreed that hand hygiene practice was important in reducing disease transmissions. However, barriers such as variations of hand hygiene habits, relating visibility to transmission; concerns around young children being obsessed with washing hands; children already being ‘too clean’ and the need to build their immunity through exposure to dirt; and scepticism that hand hygiene practice was achievable in young children, all hindered participants’ motivation to develop good hand hygiene behaviour in young children.

Conclusion

Despite the established benefits of hand hygiene, sustained efforts are needed to ensure its uptake in routine care. To overcome the barriers identified in this study a multifaceted intervention is needed that includes teaching young children good hand hygiene habits, PCPs prompting parents and young children to practice hand hygiene when coming for an RTI consultation, reassuring parents that effective hand hygiene practice will not lead to abnormal psychological behaviour in their children, and community health promotion education campaigns.

Effect of Two Complementary Mass-Scale Media Interventions on Handwashing with Soap among Mothers

Poor handwashing behavior is a major cause of morbidity and mortality globally. We evaluated two complementary mass-scale media interventions targeting mothers to increase the frequency of handwashing with soap; one using TV advertising, and the other mobile phone messaging. Television Commercials (TVCs): Mothers of 4-12 year-old children (n = 756) were randomly allocated among four arms: Three different branded TVCs and a fourth, control TVC unrelated to handwashing. TVCs were embedded in blocks of unrelated commercials and shown once a week over four weeks in participants' own homes. Mobile messages: New mothers (n = 598) and mothers of 4-7 year-old children (n = 501) were enrolled in a treatment or control arm. Mothers in the treatment arm received branded mobile phone messages twice weekly for 8 weeks (new mothers) or 4 weeks (mothers of 4-7 year-olds). For TVCs, there were higher rates of handwashing with soap at key occasions in the first (RR: 1.33, p = .002) and second (RR: 1.26, p = .041) of three treatment arms, or 0.4 additional handwashes with soap on key occasions daily. In the mobile study, new mothers (adj-RR: 1.04, p = .035) and general mothers (RR: 1.07, p = .007) receiving the intervention were more likely to wash their hands with soap on key occasions than those in the control group, corresponding to 1.3 and 1.0 more occasions daily. These interventions were associated with significantly greater handwashing with soap, consistent with the hypothesis that branded mass communications can impact habitual lifestyle behaviors relevant to public health.

Health outcomes related to the provision of free, tangible goods: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Free provision of tangible goods that may improve health is one approach to addressing discrepancies in health outcomes related to income, yet it is unclear whether providing goods for free improves health. We systematically reviewed the literature that reported the association between the free provision of tangible goods and health outcomes.

METHODS

A search was performed for relevant literature in all languages from 1995-May 2017. Eligible studies were observational and experimental which had at least one tangible item provided for free and had at least one quantitative measure of health. Studies were excluded if the intervention was primarily a service and the free good was relatively unimportant; if the good was a medication; or if the data in a study was duplicated in another study. Covidence screening software was used to manage articles for two levels of screening. Data was extracted using an adaption of the Cochrane data collection template. Health outcomes, those that affect the quality or duration of life, are the outcomes of interest. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017069463).

FINDINGS

The initial search identified 3370 articles and 59 were included in the final set with a range of 20 to 252 246 participants. The risk of bias assessment revealed that overall, the studies were of medium to high quality. Among the studies included in this review, 80 health outcomes were statistically significant favouring the intervention, 19 health outcomes were statistically significant favouring the control, 141 health outcomes were not significant and significance was unknown for 28 health outcomes.

INTERPRETATION

The results of this systematic review provide evidence that free goods can improve health outcomes in certain circumstances, although there were important gaps and limitations in the existing literature.

Effect of school eye health promotion on children's eye health literacy in Vietnam

Health promotion intervention in schools is a useful strategy to improve students' health awareness. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of eye health promotion interventions on eye health literacy in school children in Vietnam. A piloted questionnaire was administered to 300 children from five secondary schools in Ba Ria-Vung Tau, Vietnam at baseline and re-administered after the eye health promotion interventions. McNemar chi-square and logistic regression were used for statistical analysis. A total of 300 children aged 12-15 years (mean, 13.3 ± 1.3 years; 60% female) participated in the baseline survey. The participation rate in the post-health promotion survey was 94.7%. After the health promotion interventions, number of children who had correct eye health knowledge increased by 10-20% (60-75% to 70-95%), more children reported having had an eye examination (63.3% to 84.7%; p < 0.001) and more reported wearing spectacles (36.1% to 43.4%; p = 0.04). Children in urban schools were twice as likely to have improved knowledge of vision loss compared with children in rural schools (odds ratio, 2.1-4.1; p = 0.01 to p < 0.001). Children from rural schools had significantly higher odds of visiting doctor after the eye problems worsened (odds ratio, 4.5; p < 0.001). These results imply that eye health promotion interventions significantly improve eye health knowledge, attitudes and practices of school children. Additionally, participation of parents and teachers as change agents may further improve children's health literacy.

The effect of the "Follow in my Green Food Steps" programme on cooking behaviours for improved iron intake: a quasi-experimental randomized community study

BACKGROUND

Nutritional iron deficiency is one of the leading factors for disease, disability and death. A quasi-experimental randomized community study in South-West Nigeria explored whether a branded behaviour change programme increased the use of green leafy vegetables (greens) and iron-fortified bouillon cubes in stews for improved iron intake.

METHODS

A coinflip assigned the intervention to Ile-Ife (Intervention town). Osogbo (Control town) received no information. At baseline 602 mother-daughter pairs (daughters aged 12-18) were enrolled (Intervention: 300; Control: 302). A Food Frequency Questionnaire assessed the addition of cubes and greens to stews, the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the addition of cubes and greens to soups and changes in behavioural determinants measured using the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) evaluated the impact of the intervention on behavioural determinants and behaviour.

RESULTS

The data of 527 pairs was used (Intervention: 240; Control: 287). The increase in greens added to stews was larger in the Intervention town compared to the Control town (M_Intervention = 0.3 [SE = 0.03]; M_Control = 0.0 [SE = 0.04], p < 0.001, r = 0.36). Change in iron-fortified cubes added to stews did not differ between towns (p = 0.07). The increase in cubes added to soups was larger in the Intervention town compared to the Control Town (M_Intervention = 0.9 [SE = 0.2] vs M_Control = 0.4 [SE = 0.1], p < .0001, r = 0.20). Unexpectedly, change in greens added to soups was larger in the Control town compared to the Intervention town (M_Intervention = - 0.1 [SE = 0.1]; M_Control = 0.5 [SE = 0.1], p = 0.003, r = 0.15). The intervention positively influenced awareness of anaemia and the determinants of behaviour in the Intervention town, with hardly any change in the Control town. Baseline SEMs could not be established, so no mediation analyses were done. Post-intervention SEMs highlighted the role of habit in cooking stews.

CONCLUSIONS

The behaviour change programme increased the amount of green leafy vegetables added to stews and iron-fortified cubes added to soups. Future research should assess the long-term impact and the efficacy of the programme as it is scaled up and rolled out.

Effect of hygiene interventions on acute respiratory infections in childcare, school and domestic settings in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) disproportionately affect those living in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to determine whether hygiene interventions delivered in childcare, school or domestic settings in LMICs effectively prevent or reduce ARIs.

METHODS

We registered our systematic review with PROSPERO (CRD42017058239) and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Scopus from inception to 17 October 2017 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the impact of hygiene interventions on ARI morbidity in adults and children in community-based settings in LMICs. We stratified data into childcare, school and domestic settings and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess evidence quality.

RESULTS

We identified 14 cluster RCTs evaluating hand-hygiene interventions in LMICs with considerable heterogeneity in setting, size, intervention delivery and duration. We found reduced ARI-related absenteeism and illness in childcare settings (low- to moderate-quality evidence). In school settings, we found reduced ARI-related absenteeism and laboratory-confirmed influenza (moderate- to high-quality evidence), but no reduction in ARI illness (low-quality evidence). In domestic settings, we found reduced ARI illness and pneumonia amongst children in urban settlements (high-quality evidence) but not in rural settlements (low-quality evidence), and no effect on secondary transmission of influenza in households (moderate-quality evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that hand-hygiene interventions delivered in childcare, school and domestic settings can reduce ARI morbidity, but effectiveness varies according to setting, intervention target and intervention compliance. Further studies are needed to develop, deliver and evaluate targeted and sustainable hygiene interventions in LMICs.

Water, sanitation and hygiene interventions for acute childhood diarrhea: a systematic review to provide estimates for the Lives Saved Tool

Background

In the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) era, there is growing recognition of the responsibilities of non-health sectors in improving the health of children. Interventions to improve access to clean water, sanitation facilities, and hygiene behaviours (WASH) represent key opportunities to improve child health and well-being by preventing the spread of infectious diseases and improving nutritional status.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating the effects of WASH interventions on childhood diarrhea in children 0–5 years old. Searches were run up to September 2016. We screened the titles and abstracts of retrieved articles, followed by screening of the full-text reports of relevant studies. We abstracted study characteristics and quantitative data, and assessed study quality. Meta-analyses were performed for similar intervention and outcome pairs.

Results

Pooled analyses showed diarrhea risk reductions from the following interventions: point-of-use water filtration (pooled risk ratio (RR): 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36–0.62), point-of-use water disinfection (pooled RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.60–0.79), and hygiene education with soap provision (pooled RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.57–0.94). Quality ratings were low or very low for most studies, and heterogeneity was high in pooled analyses. Improvements to the water supply and water disinfection at source did not show significant effects on diarrhea risk, nor did the one eligible study examining the effect of latrine construction.

Conclusions

Various WASH interventions show diarrhea risk reductions between 27% and 53% in children 0–5 years old, depending on intervention type, providing ample evidence to support the scale-up of WASH in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Due to the overall low quality of the evidence and high heterogeneity, further research is required to accurately estimate the magnitude of the effects of these interventions in different contexts.

Pilot of an Elementary School Cough Etiquette Intervention: Acceptability, Feasibility, and Potential for Sustainability

Schools convene many people together for a prolonged time, facilitating spread of respiratory pathogens and amplifying epidemics. Crowded Bangladeshi schools lack the infrastructure to support optimal cough etiquette behaviors. We collected formative data on current practices from four elementary schools, and developed and piloted a low-cost cough etiquette intervention, promoting coughing and sneezing into upper sleeves at four additional schools. We trained teachers to lead behavior change sessions during regular hygiene classes for 4 weeks. We evaluated intervention acceptability, feasibility, and potential for sustainability at 1 month and at 14 months after the intervention commenced. At baseline, among 63 observed students, 58 (92%) coughed/sneezed into open air, five (8%) covered coughs/sneezes with their hands, which were not subsequently washed with soap and water as they judged this infeasible. After 4 weeks, among 70 observed students, 27 (39%) coughed/sneezed into upper sleeves, 33 (47%) into open air, and 10 (12%) covered with hands. After 14 months, among 230 observed students, 13 (6%) used upper sleeves, 154 (67%) coughed/sneezed into open air, and 59 (26%) covered with hands. Students reported that coughing/sneezing into upper sleeves was simple and protected them and their classmates from germs. This school-based intervention was acceptable and feasible, and resulted in short-term reductions in coughing/sneezing into open air, but these habits of comparatively new behavior were not sustained as teachers ceased behavior change session delivery. Strategies to support longer-term adoption of habits should be considered.

Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Facilities and Hygiene Practices Associated with Diarrhea and Vomiting in Monastic Schools, Myanmar

Gastrointestinal diseases are major contributors to mortality among children globally, causing one in 10 child deaths. Although most deaths are in children aged ≤ 5 years, the burden of disease in school-aged children is still considerable and contributes to high rates of school absenteeism. This study investigates behavioral and structural risk factors associated with diarrhea and/or vomiting among schoolchildren in Myanmar. Cross-sectional data from a school-based multistage cluster sample of grade 4 and 5 students were analyzed to explore water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) facilities and hygiene-related practices of students in monastic schools in Myanmar. The outcome of interest was student self-reported diarrhea and/or vomiting in the past week. Random effects multinomial logistic regression models were used to explore correlates at the student and school level. A total of 2,082 students from 116 schools across eight states/regions were included. Of these, 11% (223) self-reported at least one episode of diarrhea only, 12% (253) at least one episode of vomiting only, and 12% (244) diarrhea and vomiting in the past week. Independent risk factors associated with the outcome included poor availability of handwash stations, no access to a septic tank toilet, inconsistent toilet use, and lower student grade. These findings highlight the importance of having an adequate number of handwash stations for students, the provision of septic tank toilets, and consistent toilet use. Future WASH programs need to target not only the provision of these WASH facilities but also their utilization, particularly among younger school-aged children.

The Knowledge Base for Achieving the Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene

Safe drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) are fundamental to an improved standard of living. Globally, 91% of households used improved drinking water sources in 2015, while for improved sanitation it is 68%. Wealth disparities are stark, with rural populations, slum dwellers and marginalized groups lagging significantly behind. Service coverage is significantly lower when considering the new water and sanitation targets under the sustainable development goals (SDGs) which aspire to a higher standard of ‘safely managed’ water and sanitation. Lack of access to WASH can have an economic impact as much as 7% of Gross Domestic Product, not including the social and environmental consequences. Research points to significant health and socio-economic consequences of poor nutritional status, child growth and school performance caused by inadequate WASH. Groundwater over-extraction and pollution of surface water bodies have serious impacts on water resource availability and biodiversity, while climate change exacerbates the health risks of water insecurity. A significant literature documents the beneficial impacts of WASH interventions, and a growing number of impact evaluation studies assess how interventions are optimally financed, implemented and sustained. Many innovations in behavior change and service delivery offer potential for scaling up services to meet the SDGs.

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.

Turkey Handwashing Survey: suggestion for taking the ecological model into better consideration

OBJECTIVES

This study is aimed to find out the handwashing habits and their relations to the socio-economic variables.

METHODS

The sampling is determined regarding the address-based population registration system of the country. The multi-staged stratified cluster sampling method was used. It is conducted by a face to face questionnaire with 6854 persons. 22 questions are asked whether they are washing their hands or not related to different situations, the results are graded and the "Handwashing Habits Score" (HHS) is obtained. The reasons for not handwashing were evaluated by categorizing as individual, environmental and combined reasons.

RESULTS

The HHS is increasing in the older age groups (β = 0.148, p < 0.001), females (β = 0.306, p < 0.001), citizens of urban settlement (β = 0.061, p < 0.001), higher education levels (β = 0.191, p < 0.001). The reasons for not handwashing were found as 53.3 % individual, 39.2 % environmental, 7.5 % combined. The frequency of mentioning not washing hands because of the environmental reasons is getting higher in the older age groups, in the urban side, and in the higher education level (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The handwashing habits are shaped by the determinant networks which form a complex structure by intertwining individual, socio-economic and environmental factors in different sub-groups with various weights. This result might contribute to the efforts of conceptualizing the health behaviors with ecological model.