Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30535198›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of epidemiology2019

Handwashing with soap after potential faecal contact: global, regional and country estimates.

Jennyfer Wolf, Richard Johnston, Matthew C Freeman, Pavani K Ram, Tom Slaymaker, Eric Laurenz, Annette Prüss-Ustün

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jennyfer WolfDepartment of Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Richard JohnstonDepartment of Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Matthew C FreemanDepartment of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Pavani K RamSchool of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Tom SlaymakerDivision of Data, Research and Policy, UNICEF, New York City, NY, USA.
Eric LaurenzFraunhofer ISE, Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, Freiburg, Germany.
Annette Prüss-UstünDepartment of Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLimited data have been available on the global practice of handwashing with soap (HWWS). To better appreciate global HWWS frequency, which plays a role in disease transmission, our objectives were to: (i) quantify the presence of designated handwashing facilities; (ii) assess the association between handwashing facility presence and observed HWWS; and (iii) derive country, regional and global HWWS estimates after potential faecal contact.

methodsFirst, using data from national surveys, we applied multilevel linear modelling to estimate national handwashing facility presence. Second, using multilevel Poisson modelling on datasets including both handwashing facility presence and observed HWWS after potential faecal contact, we estimated HWWS prevalence conditional on handwashing facility presence by region. For high-income countries, we used meta-analysis to pool handwashing prevalence of studies identified through a systematic review. Third, from the modelled handwashing facility presence and estimated HWWS prevalence conditional on the presence of a handwashing facility, we estimated handwashing practice at country, regional and global levels.

resultsFirst, approximately one in four persons did not have a designated handwashing facility in 2015, based on 115 data points for 77 countries. Second the prevalence ratio between HWWS when a designated facility was present compared with when it was absent was 1.99 (1.66, 2.39) P <0.001 for low- and middle-income countries, based on nine datasets. Third, we estimate that in 2015, 26.2% (23.1%, 29.6%) of potential faecal contacts were followed by HWWS.

conclusionsMany people lack a designated handwashing facility, but even among those with access, HWWS is poorly practised. People with access to designated handwashing facilities are about twice as likely to wash their hands with soap after potential faecal contact as people who lack a facility. Estimates are based on limited data.

Indexed as

FecesHealth BehaviorSanitationSoapsCommunicable Disease ControlDeveloping CountriesGlobal HealthHand DisinfectionHumansSoapsDiarrhoeaglobal estimateshand disinfectionhandwashing facilityhygiene

Identifiers

PMID30535198
PMCPMC6693803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.