Oliver Cumming

Burden of disease from inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene in low- and middle-income settings: a retrospective analysis of data from 145 countries

To estimate the burden of diarrhoeal diseases from exposure to inadequate water, sanitation and hand hygiene in low‐ and middle‐income settings and provide an overview of the impact on other diseases.

Effectiveness of a rural sanitation programme on diarrhoea, soil-transmitted helminth infection, and child malnutrition in Odisha, India: a cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND A third of the 2·5 billion people worldwide without access to improved sanitation live in India, as do two-thirds of the 1·1 billion practising open defecation and a quarter of the 1·5 million who die annually from diarrhoeal diseases. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a rural sanitation intervention, within the context of the Government of Indias Total Sanitation Campaign, to prevent diarrhoea, soil-transmitted helminth infection, and child malnutrition. METHODS We did a cluster-randomised controlled trial between May 20, 2010, and Dec 22, 2013, in 100 rural villages in Odisha, India. Households within villages were eligible if they had a child younger than 4 years or a pregnant woman. Villages were randomly assigned (1:1), with a computer-generated sequence, to undergo latrine promotion and construction or to receive no intervention (control). Randomisation was stratified by administrative block to ensure an equal number of intervention and control villages in each block. Masking of participants was not possible because of the nature of the intervention. However, households were not told explicitly that the purpose of enrolment was to study the effect of a trial intervention, and the surveillance team was different from the intervention team. The primary endpoint was 7-day prevalence of reported diarrhoea in children younger than 5 years. We did intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01214785. FINDINGS We randomly assigned 50 villages to the intervention group and 50 villages to the control group. There were 4586 households (24,969 individuals) in intervention villages and 4894 households (25,982 individuals) in control villages. The intervention increased mean village-level latrine coverage from 9% of households to 63%, compared with an increase from 8% to 12% in control villages. Health surveillance data were obtained from 1437 households with children younger than 5 years in the intervention group (1919 children younger than 5 years), and from 1465 households (1916 children younger than 5 years) in the control group. 7-day prevalence of reported diarrhoea in children younger than 5 years was 8·8% in the intervention group and 9·1% in the control group (period prevalence ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·83-1·12). 162 participants died in the intervention group (11 children younger than 5 years) and 151 died in the control group (13 children younger than 5 years). INTERPRETATION Increased latrine coverage is generally believed to be effective for reducing exposure to faecal pathogens and preventing disease; however, our results show that this outcome cannot be assumed. As efforts to improve sanitation are being undertaken worldwide, approaches should not only meet international coverage targets, but should also be implemented in a way that achieves uptake, reduces exposure, and delivers genuine health gains. FUNDING Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), and Department for International Development-backed SHARE Research Consortium at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

Assessing the impact of drinking water and sanitation on diarrhoeal disease in low- and middle-income settings: Systematic review and meta-regression

To assess the impact of inadequate water and sanitation on diarrhoeal disease in low‐ and middle‐income settings.

Open Defecation and Childhood Stunting in India: An Ecological Analysis of New Data from 112 Districts

Poor sanitation remains a major public health concern linked to several important health outcomes; emerging evidence indicates a link to childhood stunting. In India over half of the population defecates in the open; the prevalence of stunting remains very high. Recently published data on levels of stunting in 112 districts of India provide an opportunity to explore the relationship between levels of open defecation and stunting within this population. We conducted an ecological regression analysis to assess the association between the prevalence of open defecation and stunting after adjustment for potential confounding factors. Data from the 2011 HUNGaMA survey was used for the outcome of interest, stunting; data from the 2011 Indian Census for the same districts was used for the exposure of interest, open defecation. After adjustment for various potential confounding factors – including socio-economic status, maternal education and calorie availability – a 10 percent increase in open defecation was associated with a 0.7 percentage point increase in both stunting and severe stunting. Differences in open defecation can statistically account for 35 to 55 percent of the average difference in stunting between districts identified as low-performing and high-performing in the HUNGaMA data. In addition, using a Monte Carlo simulation, we explored the effect on statistical power of the common practice of dichotomizing continuous height data into binary stunting indicators. Our simulation showed that dichotomization of height sacrifices statistical power, suggesting that our estimate of the association between open defecation and stunting may be a lower bound. Whilst our analysis is ecological and therefore vulnerable to residual confounding, these findings use the most recently collected large-scale data from India to add to a growing body of suggestive evidence for an effect of poor sanitation on human growth. New intervention studies, currently underway, may shed more light on this important issue.

Hygiene and health: systematic review of handwashing practices worldwide and update of health effects.

To estimate the global prevalence of handwashing with soap and derive a pooled estimate of the effect of hygiene on diarrhoeal diseases, based on a systematic search of the literature.

Hygiene, Sanitation, and Water: What Needs to Be Done?

In the final article in a four-part PLoS Medicine series on water and sanitation, Sandy Cairncross and colleagues outline what needs to be done to make significant progress in providing more and better hygiene, sanitation, and water for all.

Shared Sanitation versus Individual Household Latrines: A Systematic Review of Health Outcomes

Background More than 761 million people rely on shared sanitation facilities. These have historically been excluded from international sanitation targets, regardless of the service level, due to concerns about acceptability, hygiene and access. In connection with a proposed change in such policy, we undertook this review to identify and summarize existing evidence that compares health outcomes associated with shared sanitation versus individual household latrines. Methods and Findings Shared sanitation included any type of facilities intended for the containment of human faeces and used by more than one household, but excluded public facilities. Health outcomes included diarrhoea, helminth infections, enteric fevers, other faecal-oral diseases, trachoma and adverse maternal or birth outcomes. Studies were included regardless of design, location, language or publication status. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using the STROBE guidelines. Twenty-two studies conducted in 21 countries met the inclusion criteria. Studies show a pattern of increased risk of adverse health outcomes associated with shared sanitation compared to individual household latrines. A meta-analysis of 12 studies reporting on diarrhoea found increased odds of disease associated with reliance on shared sanitation (odds ratio (OR) 1.44, 95% CI: 1.18–1.76). Conclusion Evidence to date does not support a change of existing policy of excluding shared sanitation from the definition of improved sanitation used in international monitoring and targets. However, such evidence is limited, does not adequately address likely confounding, and does not identify potentially important distinctions among types of shared facilities. As reliance on shared sanitation is increasing, further research is necessary to determine the circumstances, if any, under which shared sanitation can offer a safe, appropriate and acceptable alternative to individual household latrines.

The effect of improved rural sanitation on diarrhoea and helminth infection: design of a cluster-randomized trial in Orissa, India

BackgroundInfectious diseases associated with poor sanitation such as diarrhoea, intestinal worms, trachoma and lymphatic filariasis continue to cause a large disease burden in low income settings and contribute substantially to child mortality and morbidity. Obtaining health impact data for rural sanitation campaigns poses a number of methodological challenges. Here we describe the design of a village-level cluster-randomised trial in the state of Orissa, India to evaluate the impact of an ongoing rural sanitation campaign conducted under the umbrella of India’s Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC).We randomised 50 villages to the intervention and 50 villages to control. In the intervention villages the implementing non-governmental organisations conducted community mobilisation and latrine construction with subsidies given to poor families. Control villages receive no intervention. Outcome measures include (1) diarrhoea in children under 5 and in all ages, (2) soil-transmitted helminth infections, (3) anthropometric measures, (4) water quality, (5) number of insect vectors (flies, mosquitoes), (6) exposure to faecal pathogens in the environment. In addition we are conducting process documentation (latrine construction and use, intervention reach), cost and cost-effectiveness analyses, spatial analyses and qualitative research on gender and water use for sanitation.ResultsRandomisation resulted in an acceptable balance between trial arms. The sample size requirements appear to be met for the main study outcomes. Delays in intervention roll-out caused logistical problems especially for the planning of health outcome follow-up surveys. Latrine coverage at the end of the construction period (55%) remained below the target of 70%, a result that may, however, be in line with many other TSC intervention areas in India.ConclusionWe discuss a number of methodological problems encountered thus far in this study that may be typical for sanitation trials. Nevertheless, it is expected that the trial procedures will allow measuring the effectiveness of a typical rural sanitation campaign, with sufficient accuracy and validity.

Systematic review and meta-analysis: association between water and sanitation environment and maternal mortality

To assess whether the lack of water or the lack of sanitation facilities in either the home or in health facilities is associated with an increased risk of maternal mortality and to quantify the effect sizes.

Estimating the impact of unsafe water, sanitation and hygiene on the global burden of disease: evolving and alternative methods.

The 2010 global burden of disease (GBD) study represents the latest effort to estimate the global burden of disease and injuries and the associated risk factors. Like previous GBD studies, this latest iteration reflects a continuing evolution in methods, scope and evidence base. Since the first GBD Study in 1990, the burden of diarrhoeal disease and the burden attributable to inadequate water and sanitation have fallen dramatically. While this is consistent with trends in communicable disease and child mortality, the change in attributable risk is also due to new interpretations of the epidemiological evidence from studies of interventions to improve water quality. To provide context for a series of companion papers proposing alternative assumptions and methods concerning the disease burden and risks from inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene, we summarise evolving methods over previous GBD studies. We also describe an alternative approach using population intervention modelling. We conclude by emphasising the important role of GBD studies and the need to ensure that policy on interventions such as water and sanitation be grounded on methods that are transparent, peer‐reviewed and widely accepted.