by
Mahbubur Rahman;
Sania Ashraf;
Leanne Unicomb;
A.K.M. Mainuddin;
Sarker Masud Parvez;
Farzana Begum;
Kishor Kumar Das;
Abu Mohd Naser;
Faruqe Hussain;
Thomas Clasen;
Stephen P. Luby;
Elli Leontsini;
Peter J. Winch
Background: Researchers typically report more on the impact of public health interventions and less on the degree to which interventions were followed implementation fidelity. We developed and measured fidelity indicators for the WASH Benefits Bangladesh study, a large-scale efficacy trial, in order to identify gaps between intended and actual implementation. Methods: Community health workers (CHWs) delivered individual and combined water, sanitation, handwashing (WSH) and child nutrition interventions to 4169 enrolled households in geographically matched clusters. Households received free enabling technologies (insulated water storage container; sani-scoop, potty, double-pit, pour-flush latrine; handwashing station, soapy-water storage bottle), and supplies (chlorine tablets, lipid-based nutrient supplements, laundry detergent sachets) integrated with parallel behavior-change promotion. Behavioral objectives were drinking treated, safely stored water, safe feces disposal, handwashing with soap at key times, and age-appropriate nutrition behaviors. We administered monthly surveys and spot-checks to households from randomly selected clusters for 6 months early in the trial. If any fidelity measures fell below set benchmarks, a rapid response mechanism was triggered. Results: In the first 3 months, functional water seals were detected in 33% (14/42) of latrines in the sanitation only arm; 35% (14/40) for the combined WSH arm; and 60% (34/57) for the combined WSH and Nutrition arm, all falling below the pre-set benchmark of 80%. Other fidelity indicators met the 65 to 80% uptake benchmarks. Rapid qualitative investigations determined that households concurrently used their own latrines with broken water seals in parallel with those provided by the trial. In consultation with the households, we closed pre-existing latrines without water seals, increased the CHWs' visit frequency to encourage correct maintenance of latrines with water seals, and discouraged water-seal removal or breakage. At the sixth assessment, 86% (51/59) of households were in sanitation only; 92% (72/78) in the combined WSH; and 93% (71/76) in the combined WSH and Nutrition arms had latrines with functional water seals. Conclusions: An intensive implementation fidelity monitoring and rapid response system proved beneficial for this efficacy trial. To implement a routine program at scale requires further research into an adaptation of fidelity monitoring that supports program effectiveness.
Community-level action may be required to achieve the levels of sanitation uptake necessary for health gains. Evidence suggests that collective action is influenced by collective efficacy (CE)—a group’s belief in its abilities to organize and execute action to achieve common goals. The extent to which it is necessary to fully contextualize existing CE measurement tools, in order to conduct meaningful assessments of the factors influencing CE perceptions, is not well understood. This study examines the value added of contextualizing an existing CE measurement tool using qualitative formative research. We employed a modified grounded theory approach to develop a contextualized CE framework based on qualitative data from rural Cambodian villages. The resulting framework included sub-constructs that were pertinent for the rural Cambodian context for which an existing, hypothesized framework did not account: perceived risks/benefits, action knowledge, shared needs/benefits, and external accountability. Complex confirmatory factor analyses indicated that contextualized models fit the data better than hypothesized models for women and men. This study demonstrates that inductive, qualitative research allows community-derived factors to enhance existing tools for context-specific CE measurement. Additional research is needed to determine which CE factors transcend contexts and could, thus, form the foundation of a general CE measurement tool.
by
Clara MacLeod;
Laura Braun;
Bethany A Caruso;
Claire Chase;
Kondwani Chidziwisano;
Jenala Chipungu;
Robert Dreibelbis;
Regina Ejemot-Nwadiaro;
Bruce Gordon;
Joanna Esteves Mills;
Oliver Cumming
Background Hand hygiene is an important measure to prevent disease transmission. Objective To summarise current international guideline recommendations for hand hygiene in community settings and to assess to what extent they are consistent and evidence based. Eligibility criteria We included international guidelines with one or more recommendations on hand hygiene in community settings - categorised as domestic, public or institutional - published by international organisations, in English or French, between 1 January 1990 and 15 November 2021. Data sources To identify relevant guidelines, we searched the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing Database, Google, websites of international organisations, and contacted expert organisations and individuals. Charting methods Recommendations were mapped to four areas related to hand hygiene: (1) effective hand hygiene; (2) minimum requirements; (3) behaviour change and (4) government measures. Recommendations were assessed for consistency, concordance and whether supported by evidence. Results We identified 51 guidelines containing 923 recommendations published between 1999 and 2021 by multilateral agencies and international non-governmental organisations. Handwashing with soap is consistently recommended as the preferred method for hand hygiene across all community settings. Most guidelines specifically recommend handwashing with plain soap and running water for at least 20 s; single-use paper towels for hand drying; and alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) as a complement or alternative to handwashing. There are inconsistent and discordant recommendations for water quality for handwashing, affordable and effective alternatives to soap and ABHR, and the design of handwashing stations. There are gaps in recommendations on soap and water quantity, behaviour change approaches and government measures required for effective hand hygiene. Less than 10% of recommendations are supported by any cited evidence. Conclusion While current international guidelines consistently recommend handwashing with soap across community settings, there remain gaps in recommendations where clear evidence-based guidance might support more effective policy and investment.
While latrine coverage is increasing in India, not all household members use their latrines. Cost-effective, culturally appropriate, and theory-informed behavior change interventions are necessary to encourage sustained latrine use by all household members. We qualitatively examined community perceptions of sanitation interventions broadly, along with specific impressions and spillover of community-level activities of the Sundara Grama latrine use behavior change intervention in rural Odisha, India. We conducted sixteen sex-segregated focus group discussions (n = 152) in three intervention and three nonintervention villages and thematically analyzed the data. We found Sundara Grama was well-received by community members and considered educative, but perceptions of impact on latrine use were mixed and varied by activity.
Intervention recruitment challenges prevented some, such as women and households belonging to lower castes, from attending activities. Spillover occurred in one of two nonintervention villages, potentially due to positive relations within and between the nonintervention village and nearby intervention village. Community-level sanitation initiatives can be hindered by community divisions, prioritization of household sanitation over community cleanliness, and perceptions of latrine use as a household and individual issue, rather than common good. Community-centered sanitation interventions should assess underlying social divisions, norms, and perceptions of collective efficacy to adapt intervention delivery and activities.