Achieving equitable uptake of handwashing and sanitation by addressing both supply and demand-based constraints: findings from a randomized controlled trial in rural Bangladesh.
Equity
Handwashing
Sanitation
Uptake
WASH benefits
Wealth quintiles
Journal
International journal for equity in health
ISSN: 1475-9276
Titre abrégé: Int J Equity Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101147692
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 01 2021
06 01 2021
Historique:
received:
28
08
2020
accepted:
09
12
2020
entrez:
7
1
2021
pubmed:
8
1
2021
medline:
6
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Supply driven programs that are not closely connected to community demand and demand-driven programs that fail to ensure supply both risk worsening inequity. Understanding patterns of uptake of behaviors among the poorest under ideal experimental conditions, such as those of an efficacy trial, can help identify strategies that could be strengthened in routine programmatic conditions for more equitable uptake. WASH Benefits Bangladesh was a randomized controlled efficacy trial that provided free-of cost WASH hardware along with behavior change promotion. The current paper aimed to determine the impact of the removal of supply and demand constraints on the uptake of handwashing and sanitation behaviors across wealth and education levels. The current analysis selected 4 indicators from the WASH Benefits trial- presence of water and soap in household handwashing stations, observed mother's hand cleanliness, observed visible feces on latrine slab or floor and reported last child defecation in potty or toilet. A baseline assessment was conducted immediately after enrolment and endline assessment was conducted approximately 2 years later. We compared change in uptake of these indicators including wealth quintiles (Q) between intervention and control groups from baseline to endline. For hand cleanliness, the poorest mothers improved more [Q1 difference in difference, DID: 16% (7, 25%)] than the wealthiest mothers [Q5 DID: 7% (- 4, 17%)]. The poorest households had largest improvements for observed presence of water and soap in handwashing station [Q1 DID: 82% (75, 90%)] compared to the wealthiest households [Q5 DID: 39% (30, 50%)]. Similarly, poorer household demonstrated greater reductions in visible feces on latrine slab or floor [Q1DID, - 25% (- 35, - 15) Q2: - 34% (- 44, - 23%)] than the wealthiest household [Q5 DID: - 1% (- 11, 8%). For reported last child defecation in potty or toilet, the poorest mothers showed greater improvement [Q1-4 DID: 50-54% (44, 60%)] than the wealthier mothers [Q5 DID: 39% (31, 46%). By simultaneously addressing supply and demand-constraints among the poorest, we observed substantial overall improvements in equity. Within scaled-up programs, a separate targeted strategy that relaxes constraints for the poorest can improve the equity of a program. WASH Benefits Bangladesh: ClinicalTrials.gov , identifier: NCT01590095 . Date of registration: April 30, 2012 'Retrospectively registered'.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Supply driven programs that are not closely connected to community demand and demand-driven programs that fail to ensure supply both risk worsening inequity. Understanding patterns of uptake of behaviors among the poorest under ideal experimental conditions, such as those of an efficacy trial, can help identify strategies that could be strengthened in routine programmatic conditions for more equitable uptake. WASH Benefits Bangladesh was a randomized controlled efficacy trial that provided free-of cost WASH hardware along with behavior change promotion. The current paper aimed to determine the impact of the removal of supply and demand constraints on the uptake of handwashing and sanitation behaviors across wealth and education levels.
METHODS
The current analysis selected 4 indicators from the WASH Benefits trial- presence of water and soap in household handwashing stations, observed mother's hand cleanliness, observed visible feces on latrine slab or floor and reported last child defecation in potty or toilet. A baseline assessment was conducted immediately after enrolment and endline assessment was conducted approximately 2 years later. We compared change in uptake of these indicators including wealth quintiles (Q) between intervention and control groups from baseline to endline.
RESULTS
For hand cleanliness, the poorest mothers improved more [Q1 difference in difference, DID: 16% (7, 25%)] than the wealthiest mothers [Q5 DID: 7% (- 4, 17%)]. The poorest households had largest improvements for observed presence of water and soap in handwashing station [Q1 DID: 82% (75, 90%)] compared to the wealthiest households [Q5 DID: 39% (30, 50%)]. Similarly, poorer household demonstrated greater reductions in visible feces on latrine slab or floor [Q1DID, - 25% (- 35, - 15) Q2: - 34% (- 44, - 23%)] than the wealthiest household [Q5 DID: - 1% (- 11, 8%). For reported last child defecation in potty or toilet, the poorest mothers showed greater improvement [Q1-4 DID: 50-54% (44, 60%)] than the wealthier mothers [Q5 DID: 39% (31, 46%).
CONCLUSION
By simultaneously addressing supply and demand-constraints among the poorest, we observed substantial overall improvements in equity. Within scaled-up programs, a separate targeted strategy that relaxes constraints for the poorest can improve the equity of a program.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
WASH Benefits Bangladesh: ClinicalTrials.gov , identifier: NCT01590095 . Date of registration: April 30, 2012 'Retrospectively registered'.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33407549
doi: 10.1186/s12939-020-01353-7
pii: 10.1186/s12939-020-01353-7
pmc: PMC7789645
doi:
Substances chimiques
Soaps
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01590095']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
16Références
Lancet. 2012 Mar 31;379(9822):1225-33
pubmed: 22464386
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2017 Apr;220(2 Pt B):329-340
pubmed: 27825597
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018 Jan;98(1):295-299
pubmed: 29141742
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Mar;6(3):e302-e315
pubmed: 29396217
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017 Jul;97(1):271-280
pubmed: 28719305
J Dev Econ. 2019 May;138:1-16
pubmed: 31057208
Trop Med Int Health. 2006 Sep;11(9):1406-15
pubmed: 16930263
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010 Feb;82(2):289-300
pubmed: 20134007
Bull World Health Organ. 2009 Aug;87(8):580-7
pubmed: 19705007
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017 Aug;97(2):447-459
pubmed: 28722572
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Jan;6(1):e84-e94
pubmed: 29241620
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2019 Jun;222(5):765-777
pubmed: 31088724
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017 Feb 8;96(2):421-429
pubmed: 28025233
Trials. 2018 Jul 6;19(1):359
pubmed: 29976247
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016 May 27;13(6):
pubmed: 27240389
Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Dec;55 Suppl 4:S327-35
pubmed: 23169945
Water Sci Technol. 2011;63(5):1037-43
pubmed: 21411956
PLoS Med. 2007 Aug;4(8):e255
pubmed: 17713981
BMC Public Health. 2013 Oct 26;13:1015
pubmed: 24160869
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Apr;83:133-41
pubmed: 23452864
Soc Sci Med. 2008 Apr;66(8):1709-18
pubmed: 18281134
BMJ Open. 2013 Aug 30;3(8):e003476
pubmed: 23996605
Environ Sci Technol. 2017 Jun 20;51(12):7138-7147
pubmed: 28562018
Trop Med Int Health. 2014 Aug;19(8):906-16
pubmed: 24889816
Trials. 2018 Jul 6;19(1):360
pubmed: 29976234
Science. 2016 Aug 26;353(6302):889-95
pubmed: 27563091
BMC Public Health. 2019 Jan 31;19(1):135
pubmed: 30704419
Heliyon. 2018 Nov 16;4(11):e00931
pubmed: 30480156
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 21;8(8):e71438
pubmed: 23990955
Environ Sci Technol. 2018 Jul 17;52(14):7928-7936
pubmed: 29902374
Rev Saude Publica. 2010 Feb;44(1):1-16
pubmed: 20140324
BMC Public Health. 2014 Jul 15;14:721
pubmed: 25022231
J Water Health. 2009 Sep;7(3):527-34
pubmed: 19491503
Am J Public Health. 2018 Apr;108(4):464-471
pubmed: 29470118
Trop Med Int Health. 2008 Jun;13(6):835-44
pubmed: 18363587
Trop Med Int Health. 2009 Dec;14(12):1534-41
pubmed: 19793069
Lancet. 2010 Sep 18;376(9745):991-1023
pubmed: 20833426
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2009 Nov;81(5):882-7
pubmed: 19861626
Science. 2014 Sep 12;345(6202):1279-81
pubmed: 25214612
Science. 2015 May 22;348(6237):903-6
pubmed: 25883316
Lancet. 2008 Nov 8;372(9650):1661-9
pubmed: 18994664
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Dec 14;14(12):
pubmed: 29240667