Impact of a Large-Scale Handwashing Intervention on Reported Respiratory Illness: Findings from a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

Estimating spatially disaggregated probability of severe COVID-19 and the impact of handwashing interventions: The case of Zimbabwe

INTRODUCTION

The severity of COVID-19 disease varies substantially between individuals, with some infections being asymptomatic while others are fatal. Several risk factors have been identified that affect the progression of SARS-CoV-2 to severe COVID-19. They include age, smoking and presence of underlying comorbidities such as respiratory illness, HIV, anemia and obesity. Given that respiratory illness is one such comorbidity and is affected by hand hygiene, it is plausible that improving access to handwashing could lower the risk of severe COVID-19 among a population. In this paper, we estimate the potential impact of improved access to handwashing on the risk of respiratory illness and its knock-on impact on the risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease across Zimbabwe.

METHODS

Spatial generalized additive models were applied to cluster level data from the 2015 Demographic and Health Survey. These models were used to generate continuous (1km resolution) estimates of risk factors for severe COVID-19, including prevalence of major comorbidities (respiratory illness, HIV without viral load suppression, anemia and obesity) and prevalence of smoking, which were aggregated to district level alongside estimates of the proportion of the population under 50 from Worldpop data. The risk of severe COVID-19 was then calculated for each district using published estimates of the relationship between comorbidities, smoking and age (under 50) and severe COVID-19. Two scenarios were then simulated to see how changing access to handwashing facilities could have knock on implications for the prevalence of severe COVID-19 in the population.

RESULTS

This modeling conducted in this study shows that (1) current risk of severe disease is heterogeneous across the country, due to differences in individual characteristics and household conditions and (2) that if the quantifiable estimates on the importance of handwashing for transmission are sound, then improvements in handwashing access could lead to reductions in the risk of severe COVID-19 of up to 16% from the estimated current levels across all districts.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken alongside the likely impact on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 itself, as well as countless other pathogens, this result adds further support for the expansion of access to handwashing across the country. It also highlights the spatial differences in risk of severe COVID-19, and thus the opportunity for better planning to focus limited resources in high-risk areas in order to potentially reduce the number of severe cases.

Quantifying Factors Associated with Personal Hygiene as Measured by the qPHAT Methodology: Andilaye Trial, Ethiopia

Many water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions target improvements in personal hygiene behaviors. Yet measuring personal hygiene behaviors is a challenge due to a lack of reliable, valid, objective, and simple-to-use approaches. The purpose of this study was to examine differences between two types of hygiene outcome measures and their ability to detect relationships between WASH-related behavioral factors and behaviors. We compared hygiene outcomes generated by the Quantitative Personal Hygiene Assessment Tool (qPHAT), which yields objective measures of cleanliness on an 11-point scale, and those generated by conventional, dichotomous indicators of cleanliness. We used cross-sectional data on hygiene outcomes related to facial and hand cleanliness collected during the Andilaye Trial, an impact evaluation of a community-based WASH intervention implemented in Amhara, Ethiopia. We fit multivariable models to examine associations between measures of children's facial and hand cleanliness, via both qPHAT and dichotomous indicators, and 1) household WASH conditions, 2) psychosocial factors, and 3) reported personal hygiene practices. The qPHAT-generated outcomes were able to detect relationships between intermediate behavioral factors and hygiene outcomes that dichotomous indicators were not, including associations with water insecurity and various psychosocial factors. qPHAT-generated outcomes were negatively associated with reported face washing practices, suggesting a bias in reported behaviors. Our study highlights the limitations of reported practices and dichotomous hygiene indicators and indicates that using more quantitative hygiene outcome measures, such as those generated by qPHAT, may reveal important intermediate factors that influence hygiene behavior and support improved monitoring and evaluation of interventions.

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.

Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene and Nutritional Risk Factors for Acute Respiratory Illness in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: REDUCE Prospective Cohort Study

The objective of this cohort study was to examine the prevalence of acute respiratory illness among children under 5 years of age and to identify water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) and nutritional risk factors. This prospective cohort study was conducted in Walungu Territory, South Kivu, and Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and enrolled 512 participants. Spot checks of the household environment were conducted at baseline. Baseline minimum dietary diversity (MDD) was defined by consumption of five or more of the following food groups: 1) breast milk; 2) grains, roots, and tubers; 3) legumes and nuts; 4) dairy products; 5) flesh foods; 6) eggs; 7) vitamin A rich fruits and vegetables; and 8) other fruits and vegetables. Acute respiratory illness was defined as caregiver reported rapid breathing, difficulty breathing, lower chest wall in drawing, or coughing in the previous 2 weeks obtained at a 6-month follow-up based on the use of this definition in previous studies in Bangladesh and Kenya. A total of 58% of children had acute respiratory illness, 19% had soap present in the cooking area, and 4% in the defecation area, and 21% of children met MDD. A decreased odds of acute respiratory illness was associated with soap being present in the cooking area (odds ratio [OR]: 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38-0.88) and MDD (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.38-1.00). These findings highlight the need for interventions targeting hygiene and improved dietary diversity among rural DRC households to reduce the rate of respiratory illnesses in children under 5 years.

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.

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.

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.

Health Outcomes of an Integrated Behaviour-Centred Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Food Safety Intervention-A Randomised before and after Trial

Diarrhoeal disease in children under five in low income settings has been associated with multiple environmental exposure pathways, including complementary foods. Conducted from February to December 2018 in rural Malawi, this before and after trial with a control used diarrhoeal disease as a primary outcome, to measure the impact of a food hygiene intervention (food hygiene + handwashing) relative to a food hygiene and water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) intervention (food hygiene + handwashing + faeces management + water management). The 31-week intervention was delivered by community-based coordinators through community events (n = 2), cluster group meetings (n = 17) and household visits (n = 14). Diarrhoeal disease was self-reported and measured through an end line survey, and daily diaries completed by caregivers. Difference-in-differences results show a 13-percentage point reduction in self-reported diarrhoea compared to the control group. There were also significant increases in the presence of proxy measures in each of the treatment groups (e.g., the presence of soap). We conclude that food hygiene interventions (including hand washing with soap) can significantly reduce diarrhoeal disease prevalence in children under five years in a low-income setting. Therefore, the promotion of food hygiene practices using a behaviour-centred approach should be embedded in nutrition and WASH policies and programming.

Effects of Individual and Combined Water, Sanitation, Handwashing, and Nutritional Interventions on Child Respiratory Infections in Rural Kenya: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

Poor nutrition and hand hygiene are risk factors for acute respiratory infections (ARIs). Safe drinking water and sanitation can reduce exposure to pathogens and encourage healthy immune responses, reducing the risk of ARIs. Within a trial assessing impacts of water, sanitation, and handwashing (WASH), and nutritional interventions, we evaluated effects on ARIs. The WASH Benefits cluster-randomized trial enrolled pregnant women from Kenyan villages and evaluated health outcomes in children born to enrolled mothers 1 and 2 years after intervention delivery. Geographically adjacent clusters were block-randomized into a passive control (no promotional visits), a double-sized active control (monthly visits to measure mid–upper arm circumference), and six intervention groups: chlorinated drinking water (W), improved sanitation (S), handwashing with soap (H), combined WSH, improved nutrition (N) through counseling and lipid-based nutrient supplementation (LNS), and combined WSHN. The main outcome was the prevalence of ARI symptoms (cough, panting, wheezing, or difficulty breathing) in children younger than 3 years. Masking participants was not possible. Analyses were intention-to-treat. Between November 2012 and May 2014, 702 clusters were enrolled, including 6,960 (year 1) and 7,088 (year 2) children with ARI data. The cluster-level intra-cluster correlation coefficient for ARIs was 0.026 across both years. Water, sanitation, and handwashing interventions with behavior change messaging did not reduce ARIs. Nutrition counseling and LNS modestly reduced ARI symptoms compared with controls in year 1 [prevalence ratio (PR): 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77–0.99], but no effect in the combined WSHN group weakens this finding.