Delayed effectiveness of home-based intervention in reducing childhood diarrhea, Karachi, Pakistan

Division of Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases, National Centers for Infectious Diseases, Mailstop A-38, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA.
The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene (Impact Factor: 2.7). 11/2004; 71(4):420-7.
Source: PubMed


We introduced home drinking water disinfection and handwashing with soap in Karachi squatter settlements to evaluate their effect on diarrhea. In April 2000, 150 households received soap, 76 received dilute bleach and a water storage vessel, and 76 were enrolled as controls. In 2000, among households wealthy enough to own a refrigerator, children in households that received bleach and a vessel had a 73% lower incidence of diarrhea than controls; those that received soap had a 56% lower incidence. There was no reduction in diarrhea in intervention households without a refrigerator. In 2001, households that received bleach and a vessel had a 71% lower incidence of diarrhea and children in households that received soap had a 35% lower incidence than controls. In 2001, the interventions were equally effective in households that had a refrigerator and those that did not. Both of these home-based interventions were ultimately effective in preventing diarrhea, but only households of slightly higher socioeconomic status changed their behavior quickly enough to benefit during the first summer.

Download full-text


Available from: Bruce Keswick, Jan 12, 2015
  • Source
    • "(a) Staff modify intervention in response to local circumstances (Torun 1983, Moraes et al. 2003) (a) The intervention implemented differs substantially from the label, involving additional elements that affect its impact Effect of the (current) intervention is overestimated. (b) Interventions cluster in certain areas to draw on the information from earlier efforts or in response to policy or administrative directive (Bateman et al. 1995; Luby et al. 2004; Garrett et al. 2008, Kolahi et al. 2009). (b) What people experience includes the contribution of both the current and earlier interventions. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Divisions between communities, disciplinary and practice, impede understanding of how complex interventions in health and other sectors actually work and slow the development and spread of more effective ones. We test this hypothesis by re-reviewing a Cochrane-standard systematic review (SR) of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions' impact on child diarrhoea morbidity: can greater understanding of impacts and how they are achieved be gained when the same papers are reviewed jointly from health and development perspectives? Using realist review methods, researchers examined the 27 papers for evidence of other impact pathways operating than assumed in the papers and SR. Evidence relating to four questions was judged on a scale of likelihood. At the 'more than possible' or 'likely' level, 22% of interventions were judged to involve substantially more actions than the SR's label indicated; 37% resulted in substantial additional impacts, beyond reduced diarrhoea morbidity; and unforeseen actions by individuals, households or communities substantially contributed to the impacts in 48% of studies. In 44%, it was judged that these additional impacts and actions would have substantially affected the intervention's effect on diarrhoea morbidity. The prevalence of these impacts and actions might well be found greater in studies not so narrowly selected. We identify six impact pathways suggested by these studies that were not considered by the SR: these are tentative, given the limitations of the literature we reviewed, but may help stimulate wider review and primary evaluation efforts. This re-review offers a fuller understanding of the impacts of these interventions and how they are produced, pointing to several ways in which investments might enhance health and wellbeing. It suggests that some conclusions of the SR and earlier reviews should be reconsidered. Moreover, it contributes important experience to the continuing debate on appropriate methods to evaluate and synthesize evidence on complex interventions.
    Health Policy and Planning 05/2014; 30(5). DOI:10.1093/heapol/czu039 · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Source waters treated with one or two full bottle cap(s) receive a dosage of 1.875 or 3.75 mg l 21 sodium hypochlorite, respectively. In five randomized, controlled trials, the SWS has resulted in reductions in diarrhoeal disease incidence ranging from 26 to 84% (Semenza et al. 1998; Quick et al. 1999, 2002; Luby et al. 2004; Crump et al. 2005; Chiller et al. 2006). This well-documented reduction of diarrhoeal disease incidence among SWS users has encouraged nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and governments to broadly disseminate the programme. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Over 1.1 billion people in the world lack access to improved drinking water. Diarrhoeal and other waterborne diseases cause an estimated 1.9 million deaths per year. The Safe Water System (SWS) is a proven household water treatment intervention that reduces diarrhoeal disease incidence among users in developing countries. Turbid waters pose a particular challenge to implementation of SWS programmes; although research shows that a 3.75 mg l(-1) sodium hypochlorite dose effectively treats turbid waters, users sometimes object to the strong chlorine taste and prefer to drink water that is more aesthetically pleasing. This study investigated the efficacy of three locally available water clarification mechanisms-cloth filtration, settling/decanting and sand filtration-to reduce turbidity and chlorine demand at turbidities of 10, 30, 70, 100 and 300 NTU. All three mechanisms reduced turbidity (cloth filtration -1-60%, settling/decanting 78-88% and sand filtration 57-99%). Sand filtration (P=0.002) and settling/decanting (P=0.004), but not cloth filtration (P=0.30), were effective at reducing chlorine demand compared with controls. Recommendations for implementing organizations based on these results are discussed.
    Journal of Water and Health 10/2009; 7(3):497-506. DOI:10.2166/wh.2009.071 · 1.46 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The sodium hypochlorite solution is packaged in a bottle with directions instructing users to add one full bottle cap of the solution to clear water (or 2 caps to turbid water) in a standard sized storage container, agitate, and wait 30 minutes before drinking. In five randomized controlled trials, the SWS has resulted in reductions in diarrheal disease incidence ranging from 26 –84% (Semenza 1998; Quick 1999; Quick 2002; Luby 2004; Crump et al. 2005). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Over 1.1 billion people in the world lack access to improved drinking water. Diarrheal and other waterborne diseases cause an estimated 2.2 million deaths per year. The Safe Water System (SWS) is a proven household water treatment intervention that reduces diarrheal disease incidence in users in developing countries. Because the SWS recommends the addition of sodium hypochlorite to unfiltered water sources, concerns have been raised about the potential long-term health effects of disinfection by-products to SWS users. This study investigated the production of trihalomethanes (THMs) in water treated with sodium hypochlorite from six sources used for drinking water in western Kenya. The turbidity values of these sources ranged from 4.23 NTU to 305 NTU. THM concentrations were analysed at 1, 8, and 24 hours after addition of sodium hypochlorite. No sample exceeded the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline values for any of the four THMs: chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, or bromoform. In addition, no sample exceeded the WHO additive total THM guideline value. These results clearly show that point-of-use chlorination of a variety of realistic source waters used for drinking did not lead to THM concentrations that pose a significant health risk to SWS users.
    Journal of Water and Health 04/2008; 6(1):67-82. DOI:10.2166/wh.2007.013 · 1.46 Impact Factor
Show more