Hand-washing promotion for preventing diarrhoea.

Diarrhoea accounts for 1.8 million deaths in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One of the identified strategies to prevent diarrhoea is hand washing. To assess the effects of hand-washing promotion interventions on diarrhoeal episodes in children and adults. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP), and metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) on 8 January 2020, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. Individually-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared the effects of hand-washing interventions on diarrhoea episodes in children and adults with no intervention. Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We stratified the analyses for child day-care centres or schools, community, and hospital-based settings. Where appropriate, we pooled incidence rate ratios (IRRs) using the generic inverse variance method and a random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We included 29 RCTs: 13 trials from child day-care centres or schools in mainly high-income countries (54,471 participants), 15 community-based trials in LMICs (29,347 participants), and one hospital-based trial among people with AIDS in a high-income country (148 participants). All the trials and follow-up assessments were of short-term duration. Hand-washing promotion (education activities, sometimes with provision of soap) at child day-care facilities or schools prevent around one-third of diarrhoea episodes in high-income countries (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; 9 trials, 4664 participants, high-certainty evidence) and may prevent a similar proportion in LMICs, but only two trials from urban Egypt and Kenya have evaluated this (IRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; 2 trials, 45,380 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only four trials reported measures of behaviour change, and the methods of data collection were susceptible to bias. In one trial from the USA hand-washing behaviour was reported to improve; and in the trial from Kenya that provided free soap, hand washing did not increase, but soap use did (data not pooled; 3 trials, 1845 participants; low-certainty evidence). Hand-washing promotion among communities in LMICs probably prevents around one-quarter of diarrhoea episodes (IRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.81; 9 trials, 15,950 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, six of these nine trials were from Asian settings, with only one trial from South America and two trials from sub-Saharan Africa. In seven trials, soap was provided free alongside hand-washing education, and the overall average effect size was larger than in the two trials which did not provide soap (soap provided: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.75; 7 trials, 12,646 participants; education only: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; 2 trials, 3304 participants). There was increased hand washing at major prompts (before eating or cooking, after visiting the toilet, or cleaning the baby's bottom) and increased compliance with hand-hygiene procedure (behavioural outcome) in the intervention groups compared with the control in community trials (data not pooled: 4 trials, 3591 participants; high-certainty evidence). Hand-washing promotion for the one trial conducted in a hospital among a high-risk population showed significant reduction in mean episodes of diarrhoea (1.68 fewer) in the intervention group (mean difference -1.68, 95% CI -1.93 to -1.43; 1 trial, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Hand-washing frequency increased to seven times a day in the intervention group versus three times a day in the control arm in this hospital trial (1 trial, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found no trials evaluating the effects of hand-washing promotions on diarrhoea-related deaths or cost effectiveness. Hand-washing promotion probably reduces diarrhoea episodes in both child day-care centres in high-income countries and among communities living in LMICs by about 30%. The included trials do not provide evidence about the long-term impact of the interventions.

Ejemot-Nwadiaro RI ，Ehiri JE ，Arikpo D ，Meremikwu MM ，Critchley JA ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Hand washing promotion for preventing diarrhoea.

Ejemot-Nwadiaro RI ，Ehiri JE ，Arikpo D ，Meremikwu MM ，Critchley JA ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Rinse-free hand wash for reducing absenteeism among preschool and school children.

Illness-related absenteeism is an important problem among preschool and school children for low-, middle- and high- income countries. Appropriate hand hygiene is one commonly investigated and implemented strategy to reduce the spread of illness and subsequently the number of days spent absent. Most hand hygiene strategies involve washing hands with soap and water, however this is associated with a number of factors that act as a barrier to its use, such as requiring running water, and the need to dry hands after cleaning. An alternative method involves washing hands using rinse-free hand wash. This technique has a number of benefits over traditional hand hygiene strategies and may prove to be beneficial in reducing illness-related absenteeism in preschool and school children. 1. To assess the effectiveness of rinse-free hand washing for reducing absenteeism due to illness in preschool and school children compared to no hand washing, conventional hand washing with soap and water or other hand hygiene strategies. 2. To determine which rinse-free hand washing products are the most effective (if head-to-head comparisons exist), and what effect additional strategies in combination with rinse-free hand washing have on the outcomes of interest. In February 2020 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, 12 other databases and three clinical trial registries. We also reviewed the reference lists of included studies and made direct contact with lead authors of studies to collect additional information as required. No date or language restrictions were applied. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status, comparing rinse-free hand wash in any form (hand rub, hand sanitizer, gel, foam etc.) with conventional hand washing using soap and water, other hand hygiene programs (such as education alone), or no intervention. The population of interest was children aged between two and 18 years attending preschool (childcare, day care, kindergarten, etc.) or school (primary, secondary, elementary, etc.). Primary outcomes included child or student absenteeism for any reason, absenteeism due to any illness and adverse skin reactions. Following standard Cochrane methods, two review authors (out of ZM, CT, CL, CS, TB), independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted relevant data. Absences were extracted as the number of student days absent out of total days. This was sometimes reported with the raw numbers and other times as an incidence rate ratio (IRR), which we also extracted. For adverse event data, we calculated effect sizes as risk ratios (RRs) and present these with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for data analysis and followed the GRADE approach to establish certainty in the findings. This review includes 19 studies with 30,747 participants. Most studies were conducted in the USA (eight studies), two were conducted in Spain, and one each in China, Colombia, Finland, France, Kenya, Bangladesh, New Zealand, Sweden, and Thailand. Six studies were conducted in preschools or day-care centres (children aged from birth to < five years), with the remaining 13 conducted in elementary or primary schools (children aged five to 14 years). The included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias in several domains, most-notably across the domains of performance and detection bias due to the difficulty to blind those delivering the intervention or those assessing the outcome. Additionally, every outcome of interest was graded as low or very low certainty of evidence, primarily due to high risk of bias, as well as imprecision of the effect estimates and inconsistency between pooled data. For the outcome of absenteeism for any reason, the pooled estimate for rinse-free hand washing was an IRR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.01; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), which indicates there may be little to no difference between groups. For absenteeism for any illness, the pooled IRR was 0.82 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.97; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence), which indicates that rinse-free hand washing may reduce absenteeism (13 days absent per 1000) compared to those in the 'no rinse-free' group (16 days absent per 1000). For the outcome of absenteeism for acute respiratory illness, the pooled IRR was 0.79 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence), which indicates that rinse-free hand washing may reduce absenteeism (33 days absent per 1000) compared to those in the 'no rinse-free' group (42 days absent per 1000). When evaluating absenteeism for acute gastrointestinal illness, the pooled estimate found an IRR of 0.79 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.85; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence), which indicates rinse-free hand washing may reduce absenteeism (six days absent per 1000) compared to those in the 'no rinse-free' group (eight days absent per 1000). There may be little to no difference between rinse-free hand washing and 'no rinse-free' group regarding adverse skin reactions with a RR of 1.03 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.32; 3 studies, 4365 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Broadly, compliance with the intervention appeared to range from moderate to high compliance (9 studies, 10,749 participants; very-low certainty evidence); narrativley, no authors reported substantial issues with compliance. Overall, most studies that included data on perception reported that teachers and students perceived rinse-free hand wash positively and were willing to continue its use (3 studies, 1229 participants; very-low certainty evidence). The findings of this review may have identified a small yet potentially beneficial effect of rinse-free hand washing regimes on illness-related absenteeism. However, the certainty of the evidence that contributed to this conclusion was low or very low according to the GRADE approach and is therefore uncertain. Further research is required at all levels of schooling to evaluate rinse-free hand washing regimens in order to provide more conclusive, higher-certainty evidence regarding its impact. When considering the use of a rinse-free hand washing program in a local setting, there needs to be consideration of the current rates of illness-related absenteeism and whether the small beneficial effects seen here will translate into a meaningful reduction across their settings.

Munn Z ，Tufanaru C ，Lockwood C ，Stern C ，McAneney H ，Barker TH ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Interventions to improve sanitation for preventing diarrhoea.

Diarrhoea is a major contributor to the global disease burden, particularly amongst children under five years in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). As many of the infectious agents associated with diarrhoea are transmitted through faeces, sanitation interventions to safely contain and manage human faeces have the potential to reduce exposure and diarrhoeal disease. To assess the effectiveness of sanitation interventions for preventing diarrhoeal disease, alone or in combination with other WASH interventions. We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Chinese language databases available under the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI-CAJ). We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and conference proceedings, contacted researchers, and searched references of included studies. The last search date was 16 February 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs), and matched cohort studies of interventions aimed at introducing or expanding the coverage and/or use of sanitation facilities in children and adults in any country or population. Our primary outcome of interest was diarrhoea and secondary outcomes included dysentery (bloody diarrhoea), persistent diarrhoea, hospital or clinical visits for diarrhoea, mortality, and adverse events. We included sanitation interventions whether they were conducted independently or in combination with other interventions. Two review authors independently assessed eligible studies, extracted relevant data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used meta-analyses to estimate pooled measures of effect, described results narratively, and investigated potential sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses. Fifty-one studies met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 238,535 participants. Of these, 50 studies had sufficient information to be included in quantitative meta-analysis, including 17 cluster-RCTs and 33 studies with non-randomized study designs (20 NRCTs, one CBA, and 12 matched cohort studies). Most were conducted in LMICs and 86% were conducted in whole or part in rural areas. Studies covered three broad types of interventions: (1) providing access to any sanitation facility to participants without existing access practising open defecation, (2) improving participants' existing sanitation facility, or (3) behaviour change messaging to improve sanitation access or practices without providing hardware or subsidy, although many studies overlapped multiple categories. There was substantial heterogeneity amongst individual study results for all types of interventions. Providing access to any sanitation facility Providing access to sanitation facilities was evaluated in seven cluster-RCTs, and may reduce diarrhoea prevalence in all age groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.08; 7 trials, 40,129 participants, low-certainty evidence). In children under five years, access may have little or no effect on diarrhoea prevalence (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.16, 4 trials, 16,215 participants, low-certainty evidence). Additional analysis in non-randomized studies was generally consistent with these findings. Pooled estimates across randomized and non-randomized studies provided similar protective estimates (all ages: RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94; 15 studies, 73,511 participants; children < 5 years: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; 11 studies, 25,614 participants).  Sanitation facility improvement Interventions designed to improve existing sanitation facilities were evaluated in three cluster-RCTs in children under five and may reduce diarrhoea prevalence (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06; 3 trials, 14,900 participants, low-certainty evidence). However, some of these interventions, such as sewerage connection, are not easily randomized. Non-randomized studies across participants of all ages provided estimates that improving sanitation facilities may reduce diarrhoea, but may be subject to confounding (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.74; 23 studies, 117,639 participants, low-certainty evidence). Pooled estimates across randomized and non-randomized studies provided similar protective estimates (all ages: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.78; 26 studies, 132,539 participants; children < 5 years: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91, 12 studies, 23,353 participants).  Behaviour change messaging only (no hardware or subsidy provided) Strategies to promote behaviour change to construct, upgrade, or use sanitation facilities were evaluated in seven cluster-RCTs in children under five, and probably reduce diarrhoea prevalence (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; 7 studies, 28,909 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Additional analysis from two non-randomized studies found no effect, though with very high uncertainty. Pooled estimates across randomized and non-randomized studies provided similar protective estimates (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01; 9 studies, 31,080 participants). No studies measured the effects of this type of intervention in older populations.  Any sanitation intervention A pooled analysis of cluster-RCTs across all sanitation interventions demonstrated that the interventions may reduce diarrhoea prevalence in all ages (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.95, 17 trials, 83,938 participants, low-certainty evidence) and children under five (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.97; 14 trials, 60,024 participants, low-certainty evidence). Non-randomized comparisons also demonstrated a protective effect, but may be subject to confounding. Pooled estimates across randomized and non-randomized studies provided similar protective estimates (all ages: RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.82; 50 studies, 237,130 participants; children < 5 years: RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89; 32 studies, 80,047 participants). In subgroup analysis, there was some evidence of larger effects in studies with increased coverage amongst all participants (75% or higher coverage levels) and also some evidence that the effect decreased over longer follow-up times for children under five years. There was limited evidence on other outcomes. However, there was some evidence that any sanitation intervention was protective against dysentery (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.00; 5 studies, 34,025 participants) and persistent diarrhoea (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.75; 2 studies, 2665 participants), but not against clinic visits for diarrhoea (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.67; 2 studies, 3720 participants) or all-cause mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.89 to1.09; 7 studies, 46,123 participants). There is evidence that sanitation interventions are effective at preventing diarrhoea, both for young children and all age populations. The actual level of effectiveness, however, varies by type of intervention and setting. There is a need for research to better understand the factors that influence effectiveness.

Bauza V ，Ye W ，Liao J ，Majorin F ，Clasen T ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Interventions to improve disposal of child faeces for preventing diarrhoea and soil-transmitted helminth infection.

Majorin F ，Torondel B ，Ka Seen Chan G ，Clasen T ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》