Article

Delayed effectiveness of home-based interventions 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: 2.74). 11/2004; 71(4):420-7.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
75 Views
  • Source
    [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; DOI:10.1093/heapol/czu039 · 3.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is an increasing push for 'evidence-based' decision making in global health policy circles. However, at present there are no agreed upon standards or guidelines for how to evaluate evidence in global health. Recent evaluations of existing evidence frameworks that could serve such a purpose have identified details of program context and project implementation as missing components needed to inform policy. We performed a pilot study to assess the current state of reporting of context and implementation in studies of global health interventions.
    Implementation Science 05/2014; 9(1):57. DOI:10.1186/1748-5908-9-57 · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The number of people served by networked systems that supply intermittent and contaminated drinking water is increasing. In these settings, centralized water treatment is ineffective, while household-level water treatment technologies have not been brought to scale. This study compares a novel low-cost technology designed to passively (automatically) dispense chlorine at shared handpumps with a household-level intervention providing water disinfection tablets (Aquatab), safe water storage containers, and behavior promotion. Twenty compounds were enrolled in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and randomly assigned to one of three groups: passive chlorinator, Aquatabs, or control. Over a 10-month intervention period, the mean percentage of households whose stored drinking water had detectable total chlorine was 75% in compounds with access to the passive chlorinator, 72% in compounds receiving Aquatabs, and 6% in control compounds. Both interventions also significantly improved microbial water quality. Aquatabs usage fell by 50% after behavioral promotion visits concluded, suggesting intensive promotion is necessary for sustained uptake. The study findings suggest high potential for an automated decentralized water treatment system to increase consistent access to clean water in low-income urban communities.
    PLoS ONE 03/2015; 10(3):e0118397. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0118397 · 3.53 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
2 Downloads
Available from
Jan 12, 2015