| Literature DB >> 24194899 |
Bezatu Mengistie1, Yemane Berhane, Alemayehu Worku.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Household water treatment has been advocated as a means of decreasing the burden of diarrheal diseases among young children in areas where piped and treated water is not available. However, its effect size, the target population that benefit from the intervention, and its acceptability especially in rural population is yet to be determined. The objective of the study was to assess the effectiveness of household water chlorination in reducing incidence of diarrhea among children under-five years of age.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24194899 PMCID: PMC3806844 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077887
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Community randomized trial flow of participants on household water chlorination, eastern Ethiopia, 2011.
Baseline characteristics of community and household of the randomized control trial, Kersa district, Eastern Ethiopia, 2011.
| Variable | Control | Intervention | P value |
| Number of clusters (neighborhoods) | 18 | 18 | |
| Number of households | 285 | 284 | |
| Number of under-five children | 420 | 425 | |
| Mean family size per household | 5.79 | 6.26 | 0.15 |
| Mean age of the children | 26.16 | 26.56 | 0.65 |
| Primary caregiver of children | |||
| Mean age | 29.6 | 29.3 | 0.45 |
| No formal education | 264 (92.6) | 260(91.5) | 0.63 |
| Occupation (housewives) | 276(96.8) | 282(99.3) | 0.31 |
| Main occupation of the head of the household as farmer | 278 (97.5) | 273(96.1) | 0.40 |
| Economic indicators | |||
| Own land | 275(96.5) | 279(98.2) | 0.19 |
| Own watch | 119(41.8) | 123(43.3) | 0.70 |
| Own mobile | 27(9.5) | 37(13) | 0.18 |
| Own television | 10(3.5) | 13(4.6) | 0.51 |
| Own radio | 86(30.2) | 90(31.7) | 0.69 |
| Primary water source | |||
| Well | 142(49.8) | 138(48.6) | 0.76 |
| Spring | 118(41.4) | 113(39.8) | 0.69 |
| Stream/river | 25(8.8) | 33(11.6) | 0.26 |
| Domestic water treatment and storage | |||
| Treat water before drinking (any method) | 3(1) | 5(1.7) | 0.47 |
| Storage water at home | 285(100) | 284(100) | NA |
| Use Jerry can to store water | 285(100) | 283(99.6) | 0.31 |
| Sanitation and hygiene | |||
| Place to wash hand | 72(25.3) | 68(23.9) | 0.71 |
| Soap available | 36(12.6) | 27(9.5) | 0.23 |
| Waste disposal (proper) | 79 (27.7) | 71(25) | 0.48 |
| Latrine present | 106(37.1) | 108(38) | 0.83 |
| Two week prevalence of diarrhea | 106(25.2) | 103(24.3) | 0.73 |
NA = not applicable.
Effect of the intervention with different age group of under-five children, Kersa district, Eastern Ethiopia, 2011.
| Age group | Control groups (N = 420) | Intervention groups (N = 425) | % reduction in | P value | ||||
| Number ofDD episode | PWO | DD incidence | Number ofDD episode | PWO | DD incidence | DD incidence | ||
| <1 year | 104 | 1055 | 9.8 | 53 | 957 | 5.5 | 44 | 0.001 |
| 1–2 years | 274 | 2173 | 12.6 | 131 | 2218 | 5.9 | 53 | <0.001 |
| 3–4 years | 322 | 3486 | 9.2 | 123 | 3610 | 3.4 | 63 | <0.001 |
| All <5 years | 700 | 6714 | 10.4 | 307 | 6785 | 4.5 | 57 | <0.001 |
DD = diarrhea diseases, PWO = Person week of observation. The incidence of diarrhea was calculated as the number of new episodes divided by the total number of person–weeks observation.
Figure 2Weekly prevalence of diarrhea versus weeks of observation, Kersa district, Eastern Ethiopia, 2011.
Multivariable analysis of intervention effect on the incidence of diarrhea among under-five children, Kersa district, Eastern Ethiopia, 2011.
| Factors | Crude IRR(95% CI) | Adjusted IRR(95% CI) | P value |
| Intervention | 0.43(0.37–0.50) | 0.42(0.36–0.48) | <0.001 |
| Control | 1 | 1 | |
| Age of the child | 0.88(0.83–0.94) | 0.89(0.84–0.94) | <0.001 |
| Sex of the child | |||
| Female | 0.98(0.85–1.14) | 1.02(0.90–1.16) | 0.709 |
| Male | 1 | 1 | |
| Latrine available | |||
| Yes | 0.88(0.75–1.02) | 0.99(0.85–1.15) | 0.944 |
| No | 1 | 1 | |
| Proper waste disposal | |||
| Yes | 0.82(0.69–0.97) | 0.81(0.68–0.97) | 0.027 |
| No | 1 | 1 | |
| Soap available at home | |||
| Yes | 0.83(0.64–1.07) | 0.88(0.68–1.14) | 0.363 |
| No | 1 | 1 | |
| Hand washing facility available | |||
| Yes | 0.93(0.78–1.10) | 0.90(0.77–1.05) | 0.218 |
| No | 1 | 1 |
Figure 3Percentage of residual chlorine during observation period, Kersa district, Eastern Ethiopia, 2011.
Household stored water quality among intervention and control households at the baseline and end point of intervention.
| Intervention households | Control households | P value | |
| Number (%) of households with E.coli | |||
| Baseline | 109(78%) | 114(81%) | 0.53 |
| End point | 23(16.5%) | 92(65%) | <0.001 |
| Median E.coli per 100 ml of drinking water | |||
| Baseline | 70(0–1600) | 90(0–900) | 0.735 |
| End point | 0(0–280) | 60(0–500) | <0.001 |
Median E.coli between the intervention and control households was compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test. The number of households with E.coli contamination between the two arms was compared using t-test.