Impact of Intensive Handwashing Promotion on Secondary Household Influenza-Like Illness in Rural Bangladesh: Findings from a Randomized Controlled Trial

Healthcare personnel in 2016-2019 prospective cohort infrequently got vaccinated, worked while ill, and frequently used antibiotics rather than antivirals against viral influenza illnesses

Background

Uncertainty about risk of illness and the value of influenza vaccines negatively affects vaccine uptake among persons targeted for influenza vaccination.

Methods

During 2016-2019, we followed a cohort of healthcare personnel (HCP) targeted for free-of-charge influenza vaccination in five Lima hospitals to quantify risk of influenza, workplace presenteeism (coming to work despite illness), and absenteeism (taking time off from work because of illness). The HCP who developed acute respiratory illnesses (ARI) (≥1 of acute cough, runny nose, body aches, or feverishness) were tested for influenza using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR).

Findings

The cohort (2968 HCP) contributed 950,888 person-days. Only 36 (6%) of 605 HCP who participated every year were vaccinated. The HCP had 5750 ARI and 147 rt-PCR-confirmed influenza illnesses. The weighted incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza was 10.0/100 person-years; 37% used antibiotics, and 0.7% used antivirals to treat these illnesses. The HCP with laboratory-confirmed influenza were present at work while ill for a cumulative 1187 hours.

Interpretation

HCP were frequently ill and often worked rather than stayed at home while ill. Our findings suggest the need for continuing medical education about the risk of influenza and benefits of vaccination and stay-at-home-while-ill policies.

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.

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.

A Review of the Ring Trial Design for Evaluating Ring Interventions for Infectious Diseases

In trials of infectious disease interventions, rare outcomes and unpredictable spatiotemporal variation can introduce bias, reduce statistical power, and prevent conclusive inferences. Spillover effects can complicate inference if individual randomization is used to gain efficiency. Ring trials are a type of cluster-randomized trial that may increase efficiency and minimize bias, particularly in emergency and elimination settings with strong clustering of infection. They can be used to evaluate ring interventions, which are delivered to individuals in proximity to or contact with index cases. We conducted a systematic review of ring trials, compare them with other trial designs for evaluating ring interventions, and describe strengths and weaknesses of each design. Of 849 articles and 322 protocols screened, we identified 26 ring trials, 15 cluster-randomized trials, 5 trials that randomized households or individuals within rings, and 1 individually randomized trial. The most common interventions were postexposure prophylaxis (n = 23) and focal mass drug administration and screening and treatment (n = 7). Ring trials require robust surveillance systems and contact tracing for directly transmitted diseases. For rare diseases with strong spatiotemporal clustering, they may have higher efficiency and internal validity than cluster-randomized designs, in part because they ensure that no clusters are excluded from analysis due to zero cluster incidence. Though more research is needed to compare them with other types of trials, ring trials hold promise as a design that can increase trial speed and efficiency while reducing bias.

The effectiveness of hand hygiene interventions for preventing community transmission or acquisition of novel coronavirus or influenza infections: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Novel coronaviruses and influenza can cause infection, epidemics, and pandemics. Improving hand hygiene (HH) of the general public is recommended for preventing these infections. This systematic review examined the effectiveness of HH interventions for preventing transmission or acquisition of such infections in the community.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL and Web of Science databases were searched (January 2002-February 2022) for empirical studies related to HH in the general public and to the acquisition or transmission of novel coronavirus infections or influenza. Studies on healthcare staff, and with outcomes of compliance or absenteeism were excluded. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment, using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care risk of bias criteria or Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal checklists, were conducted by one reviewer, and double-checked by another. For intervention studies, effect estimates were calculated while the remaining studies were synthesised narratively. The protocol was pre-registered (PROSPERO 2020: CRD42020196525).

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included. Six were intervention studies evaluating the effectiveness of HH education and provision of products, or hand washing against influenza. Only two school-based interventions showed a significant protective effect (OR: 0.64; 95% CI 0.51, 0.80 and OR: 0.40; 95% CI 0.22, 0.71), with risk of bias being high (n = 1) and unclear (n = 1). Of the 16 non-intervention studies, 13 reported the protective effect of HH against influenza, SARS or COVID-19 (P < 0.05), but risk of bias was high (n = 7), unclear (n = 5) or low (n = 1). However, evidence in relation to when, and how frequently HH should be performed was inconsistent.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of effectiveness of HH for prevention of community transmission or acquisition of respiratory viruses that have caused epidemics or pandemics, including SARS-CoV-1, SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. The evidence supporting the protective effect of HH was heterogeneous and limited by methodological quality; thus, insufficient to recommend changes to current HH guidelines. Future work is required to identify in what circumstances, how frequently and what product should be used when performing HH in the community and to develop effective interventions for promoting these specific behaviours in communities during epidemics.

Household Microenvironment and Under-Fives Health Outcomes in Uganda: Focusing on Multidimensional Energy Poverty and Women Empowerment Indices

Young children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are vulnerable to adverse effects of household microenvironments. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)-specifically SDG 3 through 7-urge for a comprehensive multi-sector approach to achieve the 2030 goals. This study addresses gaps in understanding the health effects of household microenvironments in resource-poor settings. It studies associations of household microenvironment variables with episodes of acute respiratory infection (ARI) and diarrhoea as well as with stunting among under-fives using logistic regression. Comprehensive data from a nationally representative, cross-sectional demographic and health survey (DHS) in Uganda were analysed. We constructed and applied the multidimensional energy poverty index (MEPI) and the three-dimensional women empowerment index in multi-variate regressions. The multidimensional energy poverty was associated with higher risk of ARI (OR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.58). Social independence of women was associated with lower risk of ARI (OR= 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.98), diarrhoea (OR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99), and stunting (OR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.92). Women's attitude against domestic violence was also significantly associated with episodes of ARI (OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.93) and diarrhoea (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.93) in children. Access to sanitation facilities was associated with lower risk of ARI (OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.68), diarrhoea (OR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.96), and stunting (OR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.86). Investments targeting synergies in integrated energy and water, sanitation and hygiene, and women empowerment programmes are likely to contribute to the reduction of the burden from early childhood illnesses. Research and development actions in LMICs should address and include multi-sector synergies.

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.

Household transmission of influenza A and B within a prospective cohort during the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 seasons

People living within the same household as someone ill with influenza are at increased risk of infection. Here, we use Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to partition the hazard of influenza illness within a cohort into the hazard from the community and the hazard from the household. During the 2013‐2014 influenza season, 49 (4.7%) of the 1044 people enrolled in a community surveillance cohort had an acute respiratory illness (ARI) attributable to influenza. During the 2014‐2015 influenza season, 50 (4.7%) of the 1063 people in the cohort had an ARI attributable to influenza. The secondary attack rate from a household member was 2.3% for influenza A (H1) during 2013‐2014, 5.3% for influenza B during 2013‐2014, and 7.6% for influenza A (H3) during 2014‐2015. Living in a household with a person ill with influenza increased the risk of an ARI attributable to influenza up to 350%, depending on the season and the influenza virus circulating within the household.

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.

Home environmental interventions for prevention of respiratory tract infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Poor housing conditions have been associated with increased risks of respiratory infections. This review aims to determine whether modifying the physical environment of the home has benefits in reducing respiratory infections.

CONTENT

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of home environmental interventions for preventing respiratory tract infections. Ten electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials published from inception to July 31, 2020. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to assess the study outcomes. Our search identified 14 eligible studies across 12 countries, which comprised 87,428 households in total. The type of interventions on home environment included kitchen appliance and design, water supply and sanitation, house insulation, and home heating. Meta-analysis indicated a potential benefit of home environmental interventions in preventing overall respiratory tract infections (Absolute RR=0.89, 95% CI=0.78-1.01, p=0.07; Pooled adjusted RR=0.72, 95% CI=0.63-0.84, p<0.0001). Subgroup analyses depicted that home environmental interventions had no significant impact on lower respiratory tract infections, pneumonia, and severe pneumonia. A protective effect against respiratory infections was observed in high income country setting (RR=0.82, 95% CI=0.78-0.87, p<0.00001).

SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK

Home environmental interventions have the potential to reduce morbidity of respiratory tract infections. The lack of significant impact from stand-alone housing interventions suggests that multicomponent interventions should be implemented in tandem with high-quality health systems.

The effect of hand hygiene promotion programs during epidemics and pandemics of respiratory droplet-transmissible infections on health outcomes: a rapid systematic review

Background

Public health strategies in the context of respiratory droplet-transmissible diseases (such as influenza or COVID-19) include intensified hand hygiene promotion, but a review on the effectiveness of different ways of promoting hand hygiene in the community, specifically for this type of infections, has not been performed. This rapid systematic review aims to summarize the effectiveness of community-based hand hygiene promotion programs on infection transmission, health outcomes and behavioral outcomes during epidemic periods in the context of respiratory droplet-transmissible diseases. We also included laboratory-confirmed health outcomes for epidemic-prone disease during interepidemic periods.

Methods

We searched for controlled experimental studies. A rapid systematic review was performed in three databases and a COVID-19 resource. Following study selection (in which studies performed in the (pre-)hospital/health care setting were excluded), study characteristics and effect measures were synthesized, using meta-analyses of cluster-RCTs where possible. Risk of bias of each study was assessed and the certainty of evidence was appraised according to the GRADE methodology.

Results

Out of 2050 unique references, 12 cluster-RCTs, all in the context of influenza, were selected. There were no controlled experimental studies evaluating the effectiveness of hand hygiene promotion programs in the context of COVID-19 that met the in−/exclusion criteria. There was evidence that preventive hand hygiene promotion interventions in interepidemic periods significantly decreased influenza positive cases in the school setting. However, no improvement could be demonstrated for programs implemented in households to prevent secondary influenza transmission from previously identified cases (epidemic and interepidemic periods).

Conclusions

The data suggest that proactive hand hygiene promotion interventions, i.e. regardless of the identification of infected cases, can improve health outcomes upon implementation of such a program, in contrast to reactive interventions in which the program is implemented after (household) index cases are identified.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-11815-4.

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.

Interventions to increase personal protective behaviours to limit the spread of respiratory viruses: A rapid evidence review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Increasing personal protective behaviours is critical for stopping the spread of respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2: We need evidence to inform how to achieve this. We aimed to synthesize evidence on interventions to increase six personal protective behaviours (e.g., hand hygiene, face mask use, maintaining physical distancing) to limit the spread of respiratory viruses.

METHODS

We used best practice for rapid evidence reviews. We searched Ovid MEDLINE and Scopus. Studies conducted in adults or children with active or passive comparators were included. We extracted data on study design, intervention content, mode of delivery, population, setting, mechanism(s) of action, acceptability, practicability, effectiveness, affordability, spill-over effects, and equity impact. Study quality was assessed with Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool. A narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

We identified 39 studies conducted across 15 countries. Interventions targeted hand hygiene (n = 30) and/or face mask use (n = 12) and used two- or three-arm study designs with passive comparators. Interventions were typically delivered face-to-face and included a median of three behaviour change techniques. The quality of included studies was low. Interventions to increase hand hygiene (k = 6) had a medium, positive effect (d = .62, 95% CI = 0.43-0.80, p < .001, I²  = 81.2%). Interventions targeting face mask use (k = 4) had mixed results, with an imprecise pooled estimate (OR = 4.14, 95% CI = 1.24-13.79, p < .001, I²  = 89.67%). Between-study heterogeneity was high.

CONCLUSIONS

We found low-quality evidence for positive effects of interventions targeting hand hygiene, with unclear results for interventions targeting face mask use. There was a lack of evidence for most behaviours of interest within this review.

Asymptomatic transmission and high community burden of seasonal influenza in an urban and a rural community in South Africa, 2017-18 (PHIRST): a population cohort study

BACKGROUND

Data on influenza community burden and transmission are important to plan interventions especially in resource-limited settings. However, data are limited, particularly from low-income and middle-income countries. We aimed to evaluate the community burden and transmission of influenza in a rural and an urban setting in South Africa.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study approximately 50 households were selected sequentially from both a rural setting (Agincourt, Mpumalanga Province, South Africa; with a health and sociodemographic surveillance system) and an urban setting (Klerksdorp, Northwest Province, South Africa; using global positioning system data), enrolled, and followed up for 10 months in 2017 and 2018. Different households were enrolled in each year. Households of more than two individuals in which 80% or more of the occupants agreed to participate were included in the study. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected twice per week from participating household members irrespective of symptoms and tested for influenza using real-time RT-PCR. The primary outcome was the incidence of influenza infection, defined as the number of real-time RT-PCR-positive episodes divided by the person-time under observation. Household cumulative infection risk (HCIR) was defined as the number of subsequent infections within a household following influenza introduction.

FINDINGS

81 430 nasopharyngeal samples were collected from 1116 participants in 225 households (follow-up rate 88%). 917 (1%) tested positive for influenza; 178 (79%) of 225 households had one or more influenza-positive individual. The incidence of influenza infection was 43·6 (95% CI 39·8-47·7) per 100 person-seasons. 69 (17%) of 408 individuals who had one influenza infection had a repeat influenza infection during the same season. The incidence (67·4 per 100 person-seasons) and proportion with repeat infections (22 [23%] of 97 children) were highest in children younger than 5 years and decreased with increasing age (p<0·0001). Overall, 268 (56%) of 478 infections were symptomatic and 66 (14%) of 478 infections were medically attended. The overall HCIR was 10% (109 of 1088 exposed household members infected [95% CI 9-13%). Transmission (HCIR) from index cases was highest in participants aged 1-4 years (16%; 40 of 252 exposed household members) and individuals with two or more symptoms (17%; 68 of 396 exposed household members). Individuals with asymptomatic influenza transmitted infection to 29 (6%) of 509 household contacts. HIV infection, affecting 167 (16%) of 1075 individuals, was not associated with increased incidence or HCIR.

INTERPRETATION

Approximately half of influenza infections were symptomatic, with asymptomatic individuals transmitting influenza to 6% of household contacts. This suggests that strategies, such as quarantine and isolation, might be ineffective to control influenza. Vaccination of children, with the aim of reducing influenza transmission might be effective in African settings given the young population and high influenza burden.

FUNDING

US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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.

Factors associated with diarrhoea and acute respiratory infection in children under-5 years old in Ghana: an analysis of a national cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Diarrhoea and acute respiratory infection (ARI) are major causes of morbidity and mortality in children under-5 years old in Ghana. The aim of the study was to assess factors associated with diarrhoea and ARI in children under-5 years old.

METHODS

We analysed nationally representative data from the 2017-2018 Ghana Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) on 8879 children under-5 years old. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the factors associated with diarrhoea and ARI. We applied sample weights, stratification and clustering to account for the sampling design of the MICS.

RESULTS

The prevalence of diarrhoea was 17.0% (95% CI: 15.70, 18.24%). Children aged 6-11 months [Adjusted prevalence odds ratio (aPOR): 2.06, 95% CI: 1.45, 2.92], and 12-23 months (aPOR: 2.37, 95% CI: 1.67, 3.35), had higher prevalence of diarrhoea compared to children aged 0-5 months. Children whose mothers had a college or higher education (aPOR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.78), and a secondary education (aPOR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.51, 0.86), had 59% and 34% lower odds of diarrhoea respectively, compared to children whose mothers had no formal education. Children from the richest households (aPOR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.86), had 42% lower odds of diarrhoea compared to children from the poorest households. Children resident in rural areas had 22% lower odds of diarrhoea compared to their peers in urban areas (aPOR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.63, 0.98). The prevalence of ARI was 33.3% (95% CI: 31.72, 34.82%). Children aged 6-11 months (aPOR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.93), and 12-23 months (aPOR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.82), had higher prevalence of ARI compared to children aged 0-5 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the prevalence of diarrhoea and ARI among children aged 6-11 and 12-23 months was higher compared to children aged 0-5 months. Children under-5 years old whose mothers had a secondary or higher education had a lower prevalence of diarrhoea compared to children whose mothers had no formal education.

Community interventions in Low-And Middle-Income Countries to inform COVID-19 control implementation decisions in Kenya: A rapid systematic review

Globally, public health measures like face masks, hand hygiene and maintaining social distancing have been implemented to delay and reduce local transmission of COVID-19. To date there is emerging evidence to provide effectiveness and compliance to intervention measures on COVID-19 due to rapid spread of the disease. We synthesized evidence of community interventions and innovative practices to mitigate COVID-19 as well as previous respiratory outbreak infections which may share some aspects of transmission dynamics with COVID-19. In the study, we systematically searched the literature on community interventions to mitigate COVID-19, SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), H1N1 Influenza and MERS (middle east respiratory syndrome) epidemics in PubMed, Google Scholar, World Health Organization (WHO), MEDRXIV and Google from their inception until May 30, 2020 for up-to-date published and grey resources. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicates. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183064). Of 41,138 papers found, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria in various settings in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). One of the papers from LMICs originated from Africa (Madagascar) with the rest from Asia 9 (China 5, Bangladesh 2, Thailand 2); South America 5 (Mexico 3, Peru 2) and Europe 2 (Serbia and Romania). Following five studies on the use of face masks, the risk of contracting SARS and Influenza was reduced OR 0.78 and 95% CI = 0.36–1.67. Equally, six studies on hand hygiene practices reported a reduced risk of contracting SARS and Influenza OR 0.95 and 95% CI = 0.83–1.08. Further two studies that looked at combined use of face masks and hand hygiene interventions showed the effectiveness in controlling the transmission of influenza OR 0.94 and 95% CI = 0.58–1.54. Nine studies on social distancing intervention demonstrated the importance of physical distance through closure of learning institutions on the transmission dynamics of disease. The evidence confirms the use of face masks, good hand hygiene and social distancing as community interventions are effective to control the spread of SARS and influenza in LMICs. However, the effectiveness of community interventions in LMICs should be informed by adherence of the mitigation measures and contextual factors taking into account the best practices. The study has shown gaps in adherence/compliance of the interventions, hence a need for robust intervention studies to better inform the evidence on compliance of the interventions. Nevertheless, this rapid review of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance on similar respiratory infectious diseases like Covid-19 in Kenya and similar LMIC context.

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.

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings-Personal Protective and Environmental Measures

There were 3 influenza pandemics in the 20th century, and there has been 1 so far in the 21st century. Local, national, and international health authorities regularly update their plans for mitigating the next influenza pandemic in light of the latest available evidence on the effectiveness of various control measures in reducing transmission. Here, we review the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures and environmental hygiene measures in nonhealthcare settings and discuss their potential inclusion in pandemic plans. Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning. We identified several major knowledge gaps requiring further research, most fundamentally an improved characterization of the modes of person-to-person transmission.

Do various personal hygiene habits protect us against influenza-like illness?

BACKGROUND

Several studies have reported an association between improvements in hand hygiene and the reductions in rates of intestinal parasitic diseases. However, only a some have addressed its link to the frequency of influenza-like illness. The current study aimed to find the correlation between personal hygiene habits and the frequency of influenza-like illness.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study targeting 3000 participants conducted in Riyadh city, Saudi Arabia. A systematic random sampling methodology was applied for participant from different part of Riyadh city using a computer generating system. The researcher first started by calling each participant. A full explanation was given to each participant in details (from the purpose of the research, consent to answer the questionnaire, to the explanation of the outcome definition). Each point of the questionnaire was explained to them to make sure they had excellent comprehension, and therefore, respond accurately. Descriptive statistics and Odds Ratio and its 95% confidence intervals were used to determine the association between frequency of influenza-like illness and the studied variables.

RESULTS

Two thousand eighty-two (69.4%) completed the questionnaire. The participants who spent 5-10 s in handwashing with soap and rubbing were at increased risk of more frequent influenza-like illness (odds ratio = 1.37, 1.08-1.75). Handwashing with soap and rubbing after handshaking is an independent protective habit against frequent influenza-like illness (adjusted OR = 0.59, 0.37-0.94).

CONCLUSION

The decrease of the frequency of influenza-like illness could be done through the following: getting the influenza vaccine annually, washing hands with soap and hand rubbing not less than 15 s after getting out of the bathroom, before and after handshaking and before eating. Soap companies should invent soaps that take less rubbing time to kill bacteria, and subsequently may maximize compliance in the community.

Effectiveness of hand hygiene practices in preventing influenza virus infection in the community setting: A systematic review

Background

Hand hygiene is known to be an effective infection prevention and control measure in health care settings. However, the effectiveness of hand hygiene practices in preventing influenza infection and transmission in the community setting is not clear.

Objective

To identify, review and synthesize available evidence on the effectiveness of hand hygiene in preventing laboratory-confirmed or possible influenza infection and transmission in the community setting.

Methods

A systematic review protocol was established prior to conducting the review. Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library) were searched to identify relevant studies. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts and full-texts of studies retrieved from the database searches for potential eligibility. Data extraction and quality assessment of included studies were performed by a single reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. Included studies were synthesized and analyzed narratively.

Results

A total of 16 studies were included for review. Studies were of low methodological quality and there was high variability in study design, setting, context and outcome measures. Nine studies evaluated the effectiveness of hand hygiene interventions or practices in preventing laboratory-confirmed or possible influenza infection in the community setting; six studies showed a significant difference, three studies did not. Seven studies assessed the effectiveness of hand hygiene practices in preventing laboratory-confirmed or possible influenza transmission in the community setting; two studies found a significant difference and five studies did not.

Conclusion

The effectiveness of hand hygiene against influenza virus infection and transmission in the community setting is difficult to determine based on the available evidence. In light of its proven effectiveness in other settings, there is no compelling evidence to stop using good hand hygiene practice to reduce the risk of influenza infection and transmission in the community setting.

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.

Estimates of seasonal influenza-associated mortality in Bangladesh, 2010-2012

BACKGROUND

Seasonal influenza-associated mortality estimates help identify the burden of disease and assess the value of public health interventions such as annual influenza immunization. Vital registration is limited in Bangladesh making it difficult to estimate seasonal influenza mortality.

OBJECTIVES

Our study aimed to estimate seasonal influenza-associated mortality rates for 2010-2012 in Bangladesh.

METHODS

We conducted surveillance among hospitalized patients with severe acute respiratory illness (SARI) for persons aged ≥5 years and severe pneumonia for children <5 years in 11 sites across Bangladesh. We defined the catchment areas of these sites and conducted a community survey in 22 randomly selected unions (administrative units) within the catchment areas to identify respiratory deaths. We multiplied the proportion of influenza-positive patients at our surveillance sites by the age-specific number of respiratory deaths identified to estimate seasonal influenza-associated mortality.

RESULTS

Among 4221 surveillance case-patients, 553 (13%) were positive for influenza viruses. Concurrently, we identified 1191 persons who died within 2 weeks of developing an acute respiratory illness within the catchment areas of the surveillance hospitals. In 2010-2011, the estimated influenza-associated mortality rate was 6 (95% CI 4-9) per 100 000 for children <5 years and 41 (95% CI 35-47) per 100 000 for persons >60 years. During 2011-2012, the estimated influenza-associated mortality rate was 13 (95% CI 10-16) per 100 000 among children <5 years and 88 (95% CI 79-98) per 100 000 among persons aged >60 years.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a substantial burden of influenza-associated deaths in Bangladesh suggesting that the introduction of prevention and control measures including seasonal vaccination should be considered by local public health decision-makers.

Household-level risk factors for secondary influenza-like illness in a rural area of Bangladesh

Objective

To describe household‐level risk factors for secondary influenza‐like illness (ILI), an important public health concern in the low‐income population of Bangladesh.

Methods

Secondary analysis of control participants in a randomised controlled trial evaluating the effect of handwashing to prevent household ILI transmission. We recruited index‐case patients with ILI – fever (<5 years); fever, cough or sore throat (≥5 years) – from health facilities, collected information on household factors and conducted syndromic surveillance among household contacts for 10 days after resolution of index‐case patients’ symptoms. We evaluated the associations between household factors at baseline and secondary ILI among household contacts using negative binomial regression, accounting for clustering by household.

Results

Our sample was 1491 household contacts of 184 index‐case patients. Seventy‐one percentage reported that smoking occurred in their home, 27% shared a latrine with one other household and 36% shared a latrine with >1 other household. A total of 114 household contacts (7.6%) had symptoms of ILI during follow‐up. Smoking in the home (RR_adj 1.9, 95% CI: 1.2, 3.0) and sharing a latrine with one household (RR_adj 2.1, 95% CI: 1.2, 3.6) or >1 household (RR_adj 3.1, 95% CI: 1.8–5.2) were independently associated with increased risk of secondary ILI.

Conclusion

Tobacco use in homes could increase respiratory illness in Bangladesh. The mechanism between use of shared latrines and household ILI transmission is not clear. It is possible that respiratory pathogens could be transmitted through faecal contact or contaminated fomites in shared latrines.

Is pregnancy a teachable moment to promote handwashing with soap among primiparous women in rural Bangladesh? Follow-up of a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Promoting handwashing with soap to mothers of young children can significantly reduce diarrhoea and pneumonia morbidity among children, but studies that measured long-term behaviour after interventions rarely found improvements in handwashing habits. Expecting mothers may experience emotional and social changes that create a unique environment that may encourage adoption of improved handwashing habits. The objective of this study was to determine whether exposure to an intensive handwashing intervention in the perinatal period (perinatal arm) was associated with improved maternal handwashing behaviour vs. exposure to the same intervention after the end of the perinatal period (post-neonatal arm).

METHODS

We identified primiparous women previously enrolled a randomised controlled handwashing intervention trial (November 2010-December 2011) and observed handwashing behaviours at the home 1-14 months after completion of the RCT (January-May 2012). We observed maternal handwashing and estimated the prevalence ratio (PR) of maternal handwashing using log-binomial regression.

RESULTS

We enrolled 107 mothers in the perinatal arm and 105 mothers in the post-neonatal arm. Handwashing with soap at recommended times was low overall (4.6%) and comparable between arms (PR = 0.9, 95% CI 0.5, 1.5).

CONCLUSIONS

This handwashing intervention was unable to develop and establish improved handwashing practices in primiparous women in rural Bangladesh. While pregnancy may present an opportunity and motivation to do so, further studies should assess whether social, individual and environmental influences overcome this motivation and prevent handwashing with soap among new mothers.

Effect of risk factors on the prevalence of influenza infections among children of slums of Dhaka city

Background

Influenza viruses may cause severe acute respiratory illness among human population. People of densely populated areas, e.g., slum, are mostly affected by influenza viruses. Although potential vaccines to influenza viruses have been developed, infection rate is still high, therefore, increase the morbidity and mortality rate in slum areas. To treat these infections, slum dwellers including children and mothers do not get proper medication as well as vaccination. Hence, prevention remains to be the only mean to tackle such infections. Herein, we determined the prevalence of influenza infections among nutritionally deprived children and mothers of slum areas in Dhaka city and demonstrated the association with different risk factors like age, gender and socio-economic status.

Results

Nasopharyngeal swab samples and a short demography of all the participants suffering from influenza-like illness (ILI) were collected. The samples were subjected to RNA extraction and then real-time RT-PCR to detect influenza viruses. Among the ILI patients, about 87.9 % did not have knowledge about influenza infections and 80.5 % did not cover their noses during coughing as well as sneezing. Children were significantly infected by both influenza A and influenza B viruses, suggesting their vulnerability to these infections. Additionally, among the children with ILI, influenza infections were significantly associated with age below or equal to three years, very poor family incomes, practicing unhygienic habits and nutritional deficiency.

Conclusions

This study suggests that proper vaccination, improved sanitary conditions and nutritional diet may help reduce the risk of influenza infections in slum areas.

Determinants of childhood morbidity in Bangladesh: evidence from the Demographic and Health Survey 2011

OBJECTIVES

The present study aims to estimate the incidence of preventable infectious diseases or associated symptoms among young children in Bangladesh and also determine the factors affecting these conditions. The study hypothesised that various background characteristics of children as well as their parents influence the incidence of morbidity of children aged below 5 years.

SETTING

The study used data from the most recent nationally representative cross-sectional Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS) conducted in 2011.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 7550 children aged below 5 years during the survey from mothers aged between 12 and 49 years are the participants of the study.

RESULTS

In general, younger children were more likely to suffer from multiple health conditions than their older counterparts. Children belonging to households classified as poor (OR=1.425, 95% CI (1.130 to 1.796)) or middle (OR=1.349, 95% CI (1.113 to 1.636)) faced greater risk of illness than those from well-off households. A combination of source and treatment practices of drinking water showed a significant impact on incidence of childhood morbidity. Children from households using untreated non-piped water were 85.8% (OR=1.860, 95% CI (1.269 to 2.728)) more likely to suffer from comorbidity than those who treat their piped drinking water. However, we observed that water treatment alone has no impact unless the water itself was sourced from a pipe.

CONCLUSIONS

Accelerated programmes promoting access to safe drinking water along with water treatment practices, and better household environment may prove effective in reducing the incidence of childhood morbidity in Bangladesh.