Harnessing the Power of Behavioral Science: An Implementation Pilot to Improve the Quality of Maternity Care in Rural Madagascar

BACKGROUND

Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is the leading direct cause of maternal deaths worldwide, and women in low-income countries are at particularly high risk of dying from PPH-related consequences. Most deaths can be avoided through consistent provider adherence to prevention protocols and timely, appropriate management, yet providers do not consistently adhere to these best practices. USING BEHAVIORAL DESIGN TO DEVELOP SOLUTIONS TO IMPROVE PROVIDER CARE: We applied the behavioral design methodology to identify behavioral drivers, develop solutions, and build a program theory of change. Implementation research was conducted to understand the adoption, desirability, feasibility, and appropriateness of the solutions and explore suggestive findings related to impact. Data were collected through observation and in-depth interviews. Solutions developed included: (1) a timer to remind providers of the 1-minute window to administer oxytocin; (2) a glow-in-the-dark poster illustrating a simplified algorithm for PPH management; (3) badges to assign family members tasks to support providers during labor and delivery; and (4) a risk visualization exercise. Clinical mentors introduced the solutions during facility visits, and providers received orientation using videos. Solutions were piloted in 10 rural facilities in southeastern Madagascar during November-December 2020.

RESULTS

Providers reported high adoption of the timers and task badges during routine deliveries. They remarked on the desirability and appropriateness of the timer, task badges, and algorithm poster, as well as the value of the cocreation process. Adoption of the timer solution shows promise in having a potential positive impact on increasing the awareness of and adherence to timely oxytocin administration.

CONCLUSION

This work highlights the promise of applying behavioral science to identify underlying drivers of gaps in clinical practice and to develop innovative and desirable solutions to address them.

Targeted Private Well Outreach Following a Change in Drinking Water Standard: Arsenic and the New Jersey Private Well Testing Act

CONTEXT

When the New Jersey Private Well Testing Act (PWTA) became effective in 2002, the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic in the United States was 50 μg/L. In 2006, the federal and New Jersey MCLs were lowered to 10 μg/L and 5 μg/L, respectively.

OBJECTIVE

To notify and provide free arsenic water testing for homeowners who had a PWTA arsenic result that passed for the MCL in 2006 or earlier but would exceed under the more health protective MCL enacted in 2006, which is still in effect as of this publication date.

DESIGN

About 1200 homeowners with PWTA arsenic results between 5 μg/L and 50 μg/L were offered free arsenic water testing. More than 400 homeowners requested tests and 292 returned samples.

SETTING

New Jersey, United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Homeowners with a passing PWTA arsenic result before 2006 that would have failed under the New Jersey arsenic MCL enacted in 2006.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Return rate of testing kits; number of tests exceeding arsenic MCL; and participant survey results.

RESULTS

Untreated well water samples (n = 279) were collected and 62.4% exceeded the New Jersey MCL. Treated well water samples (n = 102) were collected and 11.8% exceeded the current New Jersey MCL. In all, about 40% of drinking water samples from the tap, including those with or with no arsenic treatment, exceeded the New Jersey MCL. A survey of participants (n = 69) found that although many (67%) respondents reported that they at least had some idea that wells in their area are vulnerable to naturally occurring contaminants, such as arsenic, many (68%) reported that they had little or no idea that the New Jersey arsenic MCL had been lowered from 50 μg/L to 5 μg/L in 2006.

CONCLUSIONS

This effort further illuminates the necessity and significance of public health outreach for private well water users, especially after drinking water standards change.

Evaluating the impact of free private well testing outreach on participants' private well stewardship in New Jersey

Over 1 million people in New Jersey (NJ) are estimated to receive drinking water from private wells. The most commonly detected contaminants in NJ private well water are naturally occurring arsenic and gross alpha (8.3 and 10.9%, respectively). Between 2015 and 2018, three free and voluntary private well testing events tested a total of 571 at-risk wells and 226 (40%) were identified as having one or more contaminants exceeding drinking water standards. Participants were invited to complete a survey to evaluate household characteristics, participant experience, and private well stewardship behavior patterns. Of 529 delivered surveys, 211 (40%) participants completed surveys. Among respondents, 63% reported plans to test their private wells in the future. Among failed wells, 45% of households reported performing mitigative action in response to the event, either through the installation of water treatment system or switching to bottled water. The survey evaluation identified previous knowledge of well contamination risks and discussing test results with a third party as important factors for promoting self-reported stewardship behavior. The evaluation provides guidance for outreach organizers to develop effective testing events and further considers the private well owners' experience of the outreach events to identify information for 'best practices' and improvements of future programs.

Barriers inhibiting effective detection and management of postpartum hemorrhage during facility-based births in Madagascar: findings from a qualitative study using a behavioral science lens

Background

Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality in low-income countries, and is the most common direct cause of maternal deaths in Madagascar. Studies in Madagascar and other low-income countries observe low provider adherence to recommended practices for PPH prevention and treatment. Our study addresses gaps in the literature by applying a behavioral science lens to identify barriers inhibiting facility-based providers’ consistent following of PPH best practices in Madagascar.

Methods

In June 2019, we undertook a cross-sectional qualitative research study in peri-urban and rural areas of the Vatovavy-Fitovinany region of Madagascar. We conducted 47 in-depth interviews in 19 facilities and five communities, with facility-based healthcare providers, postpartum women, medical supervisors, community health volunteers, and traditional birth attendants, and conducted thematic analysis of the transcripts.

Results

We identified seven key behavioral insights representing a range of factors that may contribute to delays in appropriate PPH management in these settings. Findings suggest providers’ perceived low risk of PPH may influence their compliance with best practices, subconsciously or explicitly, and lead them to undervalue the importance of PPH prevention and monitoring measures. Providers lack clear feedback on specific components of their performance, which ultimately inhibits continuous improvement of compliance with best practices. Providers demonstrate great resourcefulness while operating in a challenging context with limited equipment, supplies, and support; however, overcoming these challenges remains their foremost concern. This response to chronic scarcity is cognitively taxing and may ultimately affect clinical decision-making.

Conclusions

Our study reveals how perception of low risk of PPH, limited feedback on compliance with best practices and consequences of current practices, and a context of scarcity may negatively affect provider decision-making and clinical practices. Behaviorally informed interventions, designed for specific contexts that care providers operate in, can help improve quality of care and health outcomes for women in labor and childbirth.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-021-03801-w.

Reduction in drinking water arsenic exposure and health risk through arsenic treatment among private well households in Maine and New Jersey, USA

Over 2 million mostly rural Americans are at risk of drinking water from private wells that contain arsenic (As) exceeding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10 micrograms per liter (μg/L). How well existing treatment technologies perform in real world situations, and to what extent they reduce health risks, are not well understood. This study evaluates the effectiveness of household As treatment systems in southern-central Maine (ME, n = 156) and northern New Jersey (NJ, n = 94) and ascertains how untreated well water chemistry and other factors influence As removal. Untreated and treated water samples, as well as a treatment questionnaire, were collected. Most ME households had point-of-use reverse-osmosis systems (POU RO), while in NJ, dual-tank point-of-entry (POE) whole house systems were popular. Arsenic treatment systems reduced well water arsenic concentrations ([As]) by up to two orders of magnitude, i.e. from a median of 71.7 to 0.8 μg/L and from a mean of 105 to 14.3 μg/L in ME, and from a median of 8.6 to 0.2 μg/L and a mean of 15.8 to 2.1 μg/L in NJ. More than half (53%) of the systems in ME reduced water [As] to below 1 μg/L, compared to 69% in NJ. The treatment system failure rates were 19% in ME (>USEPA MCL of 10 μg/L) and 16% in NJ (>NJ MCL of 5 μg/L). In both states, the higher the untreated well water [As] and the As(III)/As ratio, the higher the rate of treatment failure. POE systems failed less than POU systems, as did the treatment systems installed and maintained by vendors than those by homeowners. The 7-fold reduction of [As] in the treated water reduced skin cancer risk alone from 3765 to 514 in 1 million in ME, and from 568 to 75 in 1 million in NJ.

Improve private well testing outreach efficiency by targeting households based on proximity to a high arsenic well

Research into precautionary action suggests outreach with personally-relevant risk information may help overcome optimistic biases, which have been shown to impede voluntary testing for arsenic by at-risk private well households. Since 2002, New Jersey's Private Well Testing Act (PWTA) has required testing for arsenic during real estate transactions. The PWTA database of over 35,000 geocoded well arsenic tests offers a unique opportunity to evaluate the efficacy of targeted outreach to neighbors living in proximity to a known high arsenic well with variable risk messaging to motivate testing. In this study, residents of properties (n = 1743) located within 500 ft and between 500 and 1000 ft of a known high arsenic well (>5 μg/L, New Jersey's drinking water arsenic standard) were mailed a notice of the high arsenic result in their neighborhood and offered a free water test. Overall 274 households (16%) requested a test kit and 230 (13%) ultimately submitted a water sample; with significantly higher participation rates among those told their neighborhood well had an arsenic concentration "over 5 times higher" than the standard, compared to those told the concentration was "above." Overall, 25% of wells tested (n = 230), and 47% (n = 66) of non-treated wells located within 500 ft of a well with >25 μg/L arsenic, exceeded the standard for arsenic. Both the arsenic concentration and distance to the neighboring well were significant predictors of exceedance. Given the high proportion of previously untested wells (70%) and their owners' lack of awareness of arsenic in their area (80%), this targeting approach succeeded not only in identifying a much higher proportion of at risk wells than blanket testing by town or county, but also in motivating testing among households unreached by prior awareness-raising activities. In conclusion, geographically and personally-relevant risk targeted messaging and outreach are both efficient and effective.

Health protective behavior following required arsenic testing under the New Jersey Private Well Testing Act

Exposure to naturally occurring arsenic in groundwater is a public health concern, particularly for households served by unregulated private wells. At present, one of the greatest barriers to exposure reduction is a lack of private well testing due to difficulties in motivating individual private well owners to take protective actions. Policy and regulations requiring testing could make a significant contribution towards universal screening of private well water and arsenic exposure reduction. New Jersey's Private Well Testing Act (PWTA) requires tests for arsenic during real estate transactions; however, the regulations do not require remedial action when maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are exceeded. A follow-up survey sent to residents of homes where arsenic was measured above the state MCL in PWTA-required tests reveals a range of mitigation behavior among respondents (n = 486), from taking no action to reduce exposure (28%), to reporting both treatment use and appropriate maintenance and monitoring behavior (15%). Although 86% of respondents recall their well was tested during their real estate transaction, only 60% report their test showed an arsenic problem. Treatment systems are used by 63% of households, although half were installed by a previous owner. Among those treating their water (n = 308), 57% report that maintenance is being performed as recommended, although only 31% have tested the treated water within the past year. Perceived susceptibility and perceived barriers are strong predictors of mitigation action. Among those treating for arsenic, perceived severity is associated with recent monitoring, and level of commitment is associated with proper maintenance. Mention of a treatment service agreement is a strong predictor of appropriate monitoring and maintenance behavior, while treatment installed by a previous owner is less likely to be maintained. Though the PWTA requires that wells be tested, this study finds that not all current well owners are aware the test occurred or understood the implications of their arsenic results. Among those that have treatment installed to remove arsenic, poor monitoring and maintenance behaviors threaten to undermine intentions to reduce exposure. Findings suggest that additional effort, resources, and support to ensure home buyers pay attention to, understand, and act on test results at the time they are performed may help improve management of arsenic water problems over the long term and thus the PWTA's public health impact.

The Case for Universal Screening of Private Well Water Quality in the U.S. and Testing Requirements to Achieve It: Evidence from Arsenic

BACKGROUND

The 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulates >170,000 public water systems to protect health, but not >13 million private wells. State and local government requirements for private well water testing are rare and inconsistent; the responsibility to ensure water safety remains with individual households. Over the last two decades, geogenic arsenic has emerged as a significant public health concern due to high prevalence in many rural American communities.

OBJECTIVES

We build the case for universal screening of private well water quality around arsenic, the most toxic and widespread of common private water contaminants. We argue that achieving universal screening will require policy intervention, and that testing should be made easy, accessible, and in many cases free to all private well households in the United States, considering the invisible, tasteless, odorless, and thus silent nature of arsenic.

DISCUSSION

Our research has identified behavioral, situational and financial barriers to households managing their own well water safety, resulting in far from universal screening despite traditional public health outreach efforts. We observe significant socioeconomic disparities in arsenic testing and treatment when private water is unregulated. Testing requirements can be a partial answer to these challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal screening, achieved through local testing requirements complemented by greater community engagement targeting biologically and socioeconomically vulnerable groups, would reduce population arsenic exposure greater than any promotional efforts to date. Universal screening of private well water will identify the dangers hidden in America's drinking water supply and redirect attention to ensure safe water among affected households. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP629.

Arsenic in private well water part 3 of 3: Socioeconomic vulnerability to exposure in Maine and New Jersey

Arsenic is a naturally occurring toxic element often concentrated in groundwater at levels unsafe for human consumption. Private well water in the United States is mostly unregulated by federal and state drinking water standards. It is the responsibility of the over 13 million U.S. households regularly depending on private wells for their water to ensure it is safe for drinking. There is a consistent graded association with health outcomes at all levels of socioeconomic status (SES) in the U.S. Differential exposure to environmental risk may be contributing to this persistent SES-health gradient. Environmental justice advocates cite overwhelming evidence that income and other SES measures are consistently inversely correlated with exposure to suboptimal environmental conditions including pollutants, toxins, and their impacts. Here we use private well household surveys from two states to investigate the association between SES and risks for arsenic exposure, examining the potentially cumulative effects of residential location, testing and treatment behavior, and psychological factors influencing behavior. We find that the distribution of natural arsenic hazard in the environment is socioeconomically random. There is no evidence that higher SES households are avoiding areas with arsenic or that lower SES groups are disproportionately residing in areas with arsenic. Instead, disparities in exposure arise from differing rates of protective action, primarily testing well water for arsenic, and secondly treating or avoiding contaminated water. We observe these SES disparities in behavior as well as in the psychological factors that are most favorable to these behaviors. Assessment of risk should not be limited to the spatial occurrence of arsenic alone. It is important that social vulnerability factors are incorporated into risk modeling and identifying priority areas for intervention, which should include strategies that specifically target socioeconomically vulnerable groups as well as all the conditions which cause these disparities in testing and treatment behavior.

Arsenic in private well water part 1 of 3: Impact of the New Jersey Private Well Testing Act on household testing and mitigation behavior

Regularly ingesting water with elevated arsenic increases adverse health risks. Since September 2002, the NJ Private Well Testing Act (PWTA) has required testing untreated well water for arsenic during real estate transactions in 12 counties. Its implementation provides an opportunity to investigate the effects of policy intervention on well testing and treatment behavior. Here we analyze results of a survey mailed to 1943 random addresses (37% response), including responses from 502 private well households who purchased their homes prior to PWTA commencement and 168 who purchased after. We find the PWTA has significantly increased arsenic testing rates in an area where 21% of wells contain arsenic above the 5μg/L NJ drinking water standard. The PWTA has allowed identification of more wells with arsenic (20% of post-PWTA vs. 4% of pre-PWTA households) and more treatment for arsenic (19% of post-PWTA vs. 3% of pre-PWTA households). Such an Act is a partial answer to significant socioeconomic disparities in testing observed among households for whom it is not required. Additionally residents purchasing homes since 2002 are younger and disproportionately more likely to have children in their household (60% vs. 32%), a priority group given their particular vulnerability to effects of arsenic. Despite more wells tested under the PWTA, post-PWTA well owners forget or misremember arsenic test results more often, are more likely to report not knowing what kind of treatment they are using, and are not reporting better maintenance or monitoring of their treatment systems than pre-PWTA households. This suggests serious challenges to reducing arsenic exposure remain even when testing is a requirement. Furthermore, only a fraction of wells have been tested under the PWTA due to the slow pace of housing turnover. We recommend more public resources be made available to support private well testing among socially and biologically vulnerable groups.

Arsenic in private well water part 2 of 3: Who benefits the most from traditional testing promotion?

Arsenic, a toxic element naturally found in groundwater, is a public health concern for households drinking from wells. Private well water is not regulated to meet the federal drinking water arsenic Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10μg/L, or the more protective 5μg/L New Jersey (NJ) state MCL. In the absence of consistent private well regulation, public health efforts have relied on promoting testing in affected communities to various degrees of success. Few interventions publish results, and more often focus on the outcome of tested wells rather than who completed a test, and more importantly, who did not. Through our survey of randomly selected addresses (n=670) in 17 NJ towns we find higher rates of arsenic testing in areas with a history of testing promotion. However, we also see a stronger correlation of testing behavior with income and education in high promotion areas, suggesting that community engagement activities may be exacerbating socioeconomic status (SES) testing disparities. Well owners with a bachelor's degree had ten times greater odds of participating in our direct mail testing intervention than those with less education when tests cost $40. After all households (n=255) were offered free tests to overcome many of the usual testing barriers - awareness, convenience, and cost - only 47% participated and those who chose to return water samples were of higher income and education than those who did not. Our findings highlight that while efforts to promote and provide arsenic testing succeed in testing more wells, community testing interventions risk increasing SES disparities if those with more education and resources are more likely to take advantage of testing programs. Therefore, testing interventions can benefit by better targeting socially vulnerable populations in an effort to overcome SES-patterned self-selection when individuals are left alone with the responsibility of managing their drinking water quality.

Dissemination of well water arsenic results to homeowners in Central Maine: influences on mitigation behavior and continued risks for exposure

Private wells in the United States are unregulated for drinking water standards and are the homeowner's responsibility to test and treat. Testing for water quality parameters such as arsenic (As) is a crucial first step for homeowners to take protective actions. This study seeks to identify key behavioral factors influencing homeowners' decisions to take action after receiving well As test results. A January 2013 survey of central Maine households (n=386, 73% response) who were notified 3-7 years earlier that their well water contained As above 10 μg/L found that 43% of households report installing As treatment systems. Another 30% report taking other mitigation actions such as drinking bottled water because of the As, but the remaining 27% of households did not act. Well water As level appears to be a motivation for mitigation: 31% of households with well water level between 10 and 50 μg/L did not act, compared to 11% of households with well water >50 μg/L. The belief that the untreated water is not safe to drink (risk) and that reducing drinking water As would increase home value (instrumental attitude) were identified as significant predictors of mitigating As. Mitigating As exposure is associated with less worry about the As level (affective attitude), possibly because those acting to reduce exposure feel less worried about As. Use of a treatment system specifically was significantly predicted by confidence that one can maintain a treatment system, even if there are additional costs (self-efficacy). An assessment of As treatment systems used by 68 of these households with well water As >10 μg/L followed up within August-November 2013 found that 15% of treatment units failed to produce water below As 10 μg/L, suggesting that there are continued risks for exposure even after the decision is made to treat.

Influences on domestic well water testing behavior in a Central Maine area with frequent groundwater arsenic occurrence

In 2001 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted a new standard for arsenic (As) in drinking water of 10 μg/L, replacing the old standard of 50 μg/L. However, for the 12% of the U.S. population relying on unregulated domestic well water, including half of the population of Maine, it is solely the well owner's responsibility to test and treat the water. A mailed household survey was implemented in January 2013 in 13 towns of Central Maine with the goal of understanding the population's testing and treatment practices and the key behavior influencing factors in an area with high well-water dependency and frequent natural groundwater As. The response rate was 58.3%; 525 of 900 likely-delivered surveys to randomly selected addresses were completed. Although 78% of the households reported that their well has been tested, half of it was more than 5 years ago. Among the 58.7% who believe they have tested for As, most do not remember the results. Better educated, higher income homeowners who more recently purchased their homes are most likely to have included As when last testing. While households agree that water and As-related health risks can be severe, they feel low personal vulnerability and there are low testing norms overall. Significant predictors of including As when last testing include: having knowledge that years of exposure increases As-related health risks (risk knowledge), knowing who to contact to test well water (action knowledge), believing that regular testing does not take too much time (instrumental attitude), and having neighbors who regularly test their water (descriptive norm). Homeowners in As-affected communities have the tendency to underestimate their As risks compared to their neighbors. The reasons for this optimistic bias require further study, but low testing behaviors in this area may be due to the influence of a combination of norm, ability, and attitude factors and barriers.

Arsenic in tube well water in Bangladesh: health and economic impacts and implications for arsenic mitigation

A national drinking water quality survey conducted in 2009 furnished data that were used to make an updated estimate of chronic arsenic exposure in Bangladesh. About 20 million and 45 million people were found to be exposed to concentrations above the national standard of 50 µg/L and the World Health Organization's guideline value of 10 µg/L, respectively. From the updated exposure data and all-cause mortality hazard ratios based on local epidemiological studies, it was estimated that arsenic exposures to concentrations > 50 µg/L and 10-50 µg/L account for an annual 24,000 and perhaps as many as 19,000 adult deaths in the country, respectively. Exposure varies widely in the 64 districts; among adults, arsenic-related deaths account for 0-15% of all deaths. An arsenic-related mortality rate of 1 in every 16 adult deaths could represent an economic burden of 13 billion United States dollars (US$) in lost productivity alone over the next 20 years. Arsenic mitigation should follow a two-tiered approach: (i) prioritizing provision of safe water to an estimated 5 million people exposed to > 200 µg/L arsenic, and (ii) building local arsenic testing capacity. The effectiveness of such an approach was demonstrated during the United Nations Children's Fund 2006-2011 country programme, which provided safe water to arsenic-contaminated areas at a cost of US$ 11 per capita. National scale-up of such an approach would cost a few hundred million US dollars but would improve the health and productivity of the population, especially in future generations.