Impact of a school-based water, sanitation, and hygiene intervention on school absence, diarrhea, respiratory infection, and soil-transmitted helminths: results from the WASH HELPS cluster-randomized trial.
Absenteeism
Animals
Child
Diarrhea
/ epidemiology
Feces
/ parasitology
Female
Helminthiasis
/ epidemiology
Helminths
/ isolation & purification
Humans
Hygiene
/ education
Laos
/ epidemiology
Male
Program Evaluation
Respiratory Tract Infections
/ epidemiology
Sanitation
/ standards
School Health Services
Soil
/ parasitology
Water Supply
/ standards
Journal
Journal of global health
ISSN: 2047-2986
Titre abrégé: J Glob Health
Pays: Scotland
ID NLM: 101578780
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2019
Dec 2019
Historique:
entrez:
31
7
2019
pubmed:
31
7
2019
medline:
10
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) in schools is promoted by development agencies as a modality to improve school attendance by reducing illness. Despite biological plausibility, the few rigorous studies that have assessed the effect of WASH in schools (WinS) interventions on pupil health and school attendance have reported mixed impacts. We evaluated the impact of the Laos Basic Education, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Programme - a comprehensive WinS project implemented by UNICEF Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR) in 492 primary schools nationwide between 2013 and 2017 - on pupil education and health. From 2014-2017, we conducted a cluster-randomized trial among 100 randomly selected primary schools lacking functional WASH facilities in Saravane Province, Lao PDR. Schools were randomly assigned to either the intervention (n = 50) or comparison (n = 50) arm. Intervention schools received a school water supply, sanitation facilities, handwashing facilities, drinking water filters, and behavior change education and promotion. Comparison schools received the intervention after research activities ended. At unannounced visits every six to eight weeks, enumerators recorded pupils' roll-call absence, enrollment, attrition, progression to the next grade, and reported illness (diarrhea, respiratory infection, conjunctivitis), and conducted structured observations to measure intervention fidelity and adherence. Stool samples were collected annually prior to de-worming and analyzed for soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infection. In addition to our primary intention-to-treat analysis, we conducted secondary analyses to quantify the role of intervention fidelity and adherence on project impacts. We found no impact of the WinS intervention on any primary (pupil absence) or secondary (enrollment, dropout, grade progression, diarrhea, respiratory infection, conjunctivitis, STH infection) impacts. Even among schools with the highest levels of fidelity and adherence, impact of the intervention on absence and health was minimal. While WinS may create an important enabling environment, WinS interventions alone and as currently delivered may not be sufficient to independently impact pupil education and health. Our results are consistent with other recent evaluations of WinS projects showing limited or mixed effects of WinS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) in schools is promoted by development agencies as a modality to improve school attendance by reducing illness. Despite biological plausibility, the few rigorous studies that have assessed the effect of WASH in schools (WinS) interventions on pupil health and school attendance have reported mixed impacts. We evaluated the impact of the Laos Basic Education, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Programme - a comprehensive WinS project implemented by UNICEF Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR) in 492 primary schools nationwide between 2013 and 2017 - on pupil education and health.
METHODS
METHODS
From 2014-2017, we conducted a cluster-randomized trial among 100 randomly selected primary schools lacking functional WASH facilities in Saravane Province, Lao PDR. Schools were randomly assigned to either the intervention (n = 50) or comparison (n = 50) arm. Intervention schools received a school water supply, sanitation facilities, handwashing facilities, drinking water filters, and behavior change education and promotion. Comparison schools received the intervention after research activities ended. At unannounced visits every six to eight weeks, enumerators recorded pupils' roll-call absence, enrollment, attrition, progression to the next grade, and reported illness (diarrhea, respiratory infection, conjunctivitis), and conducted structured observations to measure intervention fidelity and adherence. Stool samples were collected annually prior to de-worming and analyzed for soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infection. In addition to our primary intention-to-treat analysis, we conducted secondary analyses to quantify the role of intervention fidelity and adherence on project impacts.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We found no impact of the WinS intervention on any primary (pupil absence) or secondary (enrollment, dropout, grade progression, diarrhea, respiratory infection, conjunctivitis, STH infection) impacts. Even among schools with the highest levels of fidelity and adherence, impact of the intervention on absence and health was minimal.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
While WinS may create an important enabling environment, WinS interventions alone and as currently delivered may not be sufficient to independently impact pupil education and health. Our results are consistent with other recent evaluations of WinS projects showing limited or mixed effects of WinS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31360445
doi: 10.7189/jogh.09.020402
pii: jogh-09-020402
pmc: PMC6657003
doi:
Substances chimiques
Soil
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
020402Subventions
Organisme : NIEHS NIH HHS
ID : T32 ES012870
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available upon request from the corresponding author) and declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Apr 1;159(7):702-6
pubmed: 15033648
Inj Prev. 2006 Jun;12(3):140-5
pubmed: 16751442
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007 Jun;76(6):1166-73
pubmed: 17556631
Int J Epidemiol. 1991 Dec;20(4):1057-63
pubmed: 1800404
Implement Sci. 2007 Nov 30;2:40
pubmed: 18053122
Clin Trials. 2008;5(1):5-13
pubmed: 18283074
Biometrics. 2009 Jun;65(2):640-9
pubmed: 18510650
Stat Med. 2010 Sep 10;29(20):2107-16
pubmed: 20552682
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011 Mar;38(2):65-76
pubmed: 20957426
Nutr Rev. 2011 Feb;69(2):83-98
pubmed: 21294742
Emerg Infect Dis. 2011 Apr;17(4):619-25
pubmed: 21470450
Clin Trials. 2012 Feb;9(1):48-55
pubmed: 21948059
Trop Med Int Health. 2012 Mar;17(3):380-91
pubmed: 22175695
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2012 Aug;9(8):2772-87
pubmed: 23066396
Epidemiol Infect. 2014 Feb;142(2):340-51
pubmed: 23702047
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013 Nov;89(5):875-83
pubmed: 24019429
Am J Public Health. 2014 Jan;104(1):e91-7
pubmed: 24228683
Stat Med. 2014 Apr 30;33(9):1490-502
pubmed: 24288357
PLoS Med. 2014 Feb 25;11(2):e1001605
pubmed: 24586120
PLoS Med. 2014 Mar 25;11(3):e1001620
pubmed: 24667810
Comp Educ Rev. 2010 May;54(2):295-319
pubmed: 26448653
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016 Jun 1;94(6):1418-25
pubmed: 27114292
Epidemiology. 2016 Sep;27(5):752-60
pubmed: 27276028
JAMA. 2016 Dec 27;316(24):2597-2598
pubmed: 28027378
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017 Apr;96(4):984-993
pubmed: 28093534
BMC Public Health. 2017 Apr 5;17(1):302
pubmed: 28381246
JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Jun 1;171(6):573-592
pubmed: 28384795
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Mar 22;15(4):
pubmed: 29565302
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1980 Mar;29(2):217-9
pubmed: 7369441
Trop Med Int Health. 1996 Feb;1(1):27-34
pubmed: 8673819