Tomohiko Morita1, Samuel Godfrey2, Christine Marie George3. 1. Program in Global Disease Epidemiology and Control, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Section, UNICEF Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 3. Program in Global Disease Epidemiology and Control, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. cmgeorge@jhsph.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review and synthesise the available evidence on the effectiveness of interventions targeting unsafe child faeces disposal in reducing this behaviour and improving child health in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were reviewed and key information on study methodologies and outcomes were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 1048 articles were screened, and eight studies representing five countries were included for the review. Three were randomised controlled trials, and five were prospective cohort studies. There was wide variability across studies in the definition of 'safe disposal' of child faeces. Six studies reported the change in child faeces disposal practices associated with safe child faeces disposal interventions. However, only one study found a significant improvement in this behaviour. Two of the six studies that evaluated the health impact of delivered interventions found significant reductions in childhood diarrhoea associated with safe faeces disposal practices, and one study reported a positive effect on child growth and ascariasis. Only one study was identified that delivered a single intervention solely focused on safe child faeces disposal. Unfortunately, this study did not investigate the impact of this intervention on child health. CONCLUSIONS: There are major methodological limitations in studies that assessed the impact of safe child faeces disposal interventions. The health impact of these interventions is inconclusive because the quality of the current evidence is poor. Randomised controlled trials are urgently needed to assess the impact of safe faeces disposal interventions on child health.
OBJECTIVES: To review and synthesise the available evidence on the effectiveness of interventions targeting unsafe child faeces disposal in reducing this behaviour and improving child health in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were reviewed and key information on study methodologies and outcomes were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 1048 articles were screened, and eight studies representing five countries were included for the review. Three were randomised controlled trials, and five were prospective cohort studies. There was wide variability across studies in the definition of 'safe disposal' of child faeces. Six studies reported the change in child faeces disposal practices associated with safe child faeces disposal interventions. However, only one study found a significant improvement in this behaviour. Two of the six studies that evaluated the health impact of delivered interventions found significant reductions in childhood diarrhoea associated with safe faeces disposal practices, and one study reported a positive effect on child growth and ascariasis. Only one study was identified that delivered a single intervention solely focused on safe child faeces disposal. Unfortunately, this study did not investigate the impact of this intervention on child health. CONCLUSIONS: There are major methodological limitations in studies that assessed the impact of safe child faeces disposal interventions. The health impact of these interventions is inconclusive because the quality of the current evidence is poor. Randomised controlled trials are urgently needed to assess the impact of safe faeces disposal interventions on child health.
Authors: Mahfuza Islam; Ayse Ercumen; Sania Ashraf; Mahbubur Rahman; Abul K Shoab; Stephen P Luby; Leanne Unicomb Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Joy J Chebet; Aminata Kilungo; Halimatou Alaofè; Hamisi Malebo; Shaaban Katani; Mark Nichter Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Corina Shika Kwami; Samuel Godfrey; Hippolyte Gavilan; Monica Lakhanpaul; Priti Parikh Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-10-09 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Julia Vila-Guilera; Priti Parikh; Hemant Chaturvedi; Lena Ciric; Monica Lakhanpaul Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Tracy Morse; Elizabeth Tilley; Kondwani Chidziwisano; Rossanie Malolo; Janelisa Musaya Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-13 Impact factor: 3.390