| Literature DB >> 25407420 |
Carol Devamani1, Guy Norman2, Wolf-Peter Schmidt3.
Abstract
The effects of interventions such as sanitation or hand hygiene on hand contamination are difficult to evaluate. We explored the ability of a simple microbiological test to: (1) detect recontamination after handwashing; (2) reflect risk factors for microbial contamination and (3) be applicable to large populations. The study was done in rural Andhra Pradesh, India, and Maputo, Mozambique. Participants placed all 10 fingertips on a chromogenic agar that stains Enterococcus spp. and E. coli spp. Outcomes were the number of colonies and the number of fingertips with colonies. In the recontamination study, participants were randomised to handwashing with soap and no handwashing, and tested at 30 min intervals afterwards. In two cross sectional studies, risk factors for hand contamination were explored. Recontamination of hands after washing with soap was fast, with baseline levels reached after 1 h. Child care was associated with higher Enterococcus spp. counts, whereas agricultural activities increased E. coli spp. counts. Food preparation was associated with higher counts for both organisms. In Maputo, counts were not strongly associated with water access, latrine type, education or diarrhoea. The method seems unsuitable for the evaluation of handwashing promotion. It may reflect immediately preceding risk practices but not household-level risk factors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25407420 PMCID: PMC4245647 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph111111846
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Distribution of number of contaminated fingers and log 10 colony counts. (A) cross sectional study India (N = 122) (B) cross sectional study Mozambique (N = 650).
Figure 2Effect of handwashing with soap on Enterococcus contamination of finger tips.
Figure 3Effect of handwashing with soap on E. coli contamination of finger tips.
Longitudinal recontamination study: comparison between the hand washing and control at each time point (for each model N = 46 person-rounds in 14 mothers).
| Time Point | Difference in Mean Finger Counts and Mean Log Colony Counts between Hand Washing and Control (
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | −0.87 (0.89) | −0.002 (0.98) | −0.78 (0.11) | −0.08 (0.63) |
| 0.5 h | −0.96 (0.19) | −0.15 (0.26) | −0.72 (0.32) | −0.22 (0.19) |
| 1 h | 0.80 (0.29) | 0.10 (0.43) | 0.52 (0.54) | 0.02 (0.92) |
| 1.5 h | 0.43 (0.59) | 0.23 (0.10) | −0.52 (0.49) | −0.11 (0.57) |
FC—finger counts, LogCC—log colony counts; * linear regression analysis adjusted for baseline values and repeated measurements of participants.
Cross sectional study India: effect of type of person and type of activity on number of fingers contaminated and log colony count of Enterococcus and E. coli (N = 122).
| Person/Activity | No. of Fingers Contaminated | Log Colony Count | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Difference * | 95% CI | P | Difference ** | 95% CI | P | ||
| Person | |||||||
| Male (reference) | 23 | - | - | - | - | ||
| Mother of young child | 65 | 1.45 | 0.11/2.74 | 0.033 | 0.26 | 0.04/0.51 | 0.036 |
| Grandmother | 34 | 0.34 | −1.15/1.91 | 0.654 | 0.11 | −0.18/0.35 | 0.383 |
| Activity | |||||||
| None (reference) | 19 | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Child rearing | 37 | 2.35 | 0.87/3.83 | 0.002 | 0.28 | 0.02/0.52 | 0.031 |
| Food preparation | 12 | 2.41 | 1.07/3.74 | 0.000 | 0.54 | 0.17/0.92 | 0.004 |
| Soil contact | 24 | 0.77 | −0.62/2.15 | 0.276 | 0.06 | −0.18/0.30 | 0.645 |
| Contact with Agricultural products/crops | 6 | 1.36 | −0.21/2.92 | 0.090 | 0.24 | −0.24/0.71 | 0.325 |
| Animal contact | 10 | 1.36 | −0.52/3.25 | 0.156 | 0.17 | −0.24/0.58 | 0.409 |
| Other | 23 | 0.64 | −1.19/2.46 | 0.495 | 0.10 | −0.23/0.43 | 0.545 |
| Person | |||||||
| Male (reference) | 23 | - | - | - | - | ||
| Mother of young child | 65 | 0.61 | −0.48/1.82 | 0.328 | 0.08 | −0.12/0.37 | 0.534 |
| Grandmother | 34 | 0.73 | −0.66/2.12 | 0.287 | 0.19 | −0.13/0.49 | 0.210 |
| Activity | |||||||
| None (reference) | 19 | - | - | - | - | ||
| Child rearing | 37 | −0.05 | −1.39/1.30 | 0.947 | 0.10 | −0.22/0.42 | 0.542 |
| Food preparation | 12 | 1.62 | −0.28/3.51 | 0.095 | 2.20 | 1.97/2.42 | 0.000 |
| Soil contact | 24 | 0.78 | −0.59/2.16 | 0.264 | 0.14 | −0.04/0.32 | 0.129 |
| Contact with Agricultural products/crops | 6 | 2.83 | 0.26/5.41 | 0.031 | 2.28 | 2.11/2.45 | 0.000 |
| Animal contact | 10 | 1.15 | −0.56/2.86 | 0.188 | 0.27 | 0.001/0.54 | 0.050 |
| Other | 23 | −0.21 | −1.86/1.42 | 0.798 | 0.03 | −0.31/0.38 | 0.845 |
* univariate linear regression analysis, difference in mean number of contaminated fingers; ** difference in mean log colony counts.
Cross sectional study Mozambique: Effect of household characteristics on the mean number of fingers contaminated and mean log colony count of Enterococcus and E. coli (N = 650).
| Risk Factor | No. of Fingers Contaminated | Log Colony Count | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean Counts | Difference * | Mean Counts | Difference ** | ||||
| Neighbourhood ID | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||||
| 1 | 111 | 5.7 | ref | 2.7 | ref | ||
| 2 | 157 | 5.9 | 0.2 | 2.8 | 0.1 | ||
| 3 | 92 | 5.3 | −0.4 | 2.6 | −0.2 | ||
| 4 | 78 | 7.1 | 1.4 | 3.3 | 0.5 | ||
| 5 | 101 | 5.0 | −0.7 | 2.4 | −0.3 | ||
| 6 | 111 | 6.0 | 0.4 | 2.8 | 0.1 | ||
| Latrine type | |||||||
| Unimproved | 158 | 5.9 | ref | 2.9 | ref | ||
| Improved | 492 | 5.8 | −0.1 | 0.64 | 2.7 | −0.1 | 0.22 |
| Water tap | |||||||
| Out of compound | 277 | 5.9 | ref | 2.8 | ref | ||
| In compound | 373 | 5.7 | −0.2 | 0.44 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.71 |
| Highest education level in household | |||||||
| No secondary | 338 | 6.0 | ref | 2.9 | ref | ||
| Some secondary | 312 | 5.6 | −0.3 | 0.11 | 2.7 | −0.2 | 0.01 |
| Diarrhoea in HH in last 7 days | |||||||
| Yes | 124 | 5.6 | ref | 2.7 | ref | ||
| No | 526 | 5.8 | 0.2 | 0.42 | 2.8 | 0.1 | 0.49 |
| Neighbourhood ID | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||||
| 1 | 111 | 4.0 | ref | 2.2 | ref | ||
| 2 | 157 | 3.4 | −0.6 | 1.9 | −0.3 | ||
| 3 | 92 | 2.2 | −1.8 | 1.3 | −1.0 | ||
| 4 | 78 | 3.8 | −0.2 | 2.2 | 0.0 | ||
| 5 | 101 | 3.0 | −1.0 | 1.7 | −0.6 | ||
| 6 | 111 | 3.5 | −0.6 | 2.0 | −0.3 | ||
| Latrine type | |||||||
| Unimproved | 158 | 3.2 | ref | 1.8 | ref | ||
| Improved | 492 | 3.4 | 0.2 | 0.49 | 1.9 | 0.2 | 0.19 |
| Water tap | |||||||
| Out of compound | 277 | 3.4 | ref | 1.9 | ref | ||
| In compound | 373 | 3.3 | −0.1 | 0.63 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.93 |
| Highest education level in household | |||||||
| No secondary | 338 | 3.4 | ref | 1.9 | ref | ||
| Some secondary | 312 | 3.3 | −0.1 | 0.75 | 1.9 | −0.1 | 0.61 |
| Diarrhoea in HH in last 7 days | |||||||
| Yes | 124 | 3.4 | ref | 1.9 | ref | ||
| No | 526 | 3.4 | 0 | 0.99 | 1.9 | 0.1 | 0.67 |
* univariate linear regression analysis, difference in mean number of contaminated fingers; ** difference in mean log colony counts.