Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32827479›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Global health2020

Mapping geographical inequalities in access to drinking water and sanitation facilities in low-income and middle-income countries, 2000-17.

Local Burden of Disease WaSH Collaborators

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

72 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author.

Local Burden of Disease WaSH Collaborators

Funding

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PREDICTORS OF PHYSICAL AND COGNITIVE FUNCTIONP01AG041710 · NIA · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI LISA F BERKMAN, THOMAS A GAZIANO · 2013 to 2026
$37.3M
Training Tanzanian Researchers for HIV/AIDS Implementation ScienceD43TW009775 · FIC · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI Wafaie W Fawzi, Christopher Sudfeld · 2015 to 2026
$3.0M
New Methods for the design and evaluation of large HIV prevention interventionsR01AI112339 · NIAID · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI SPIEGELMAN, DONNA L · 2014 to 2017
$2.7M
Causal Pathways to population health impact of HIV antiretroviral treatmentR01HD084233 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL · PI BARNIGHAUSEN, TILL, TANSER, FRANK COURTENEY · 2015 to 2021
$2.3M
Can HIV Hot-Spots be eradicated? An intervention to decrease HIV transmission to young women in rural KwaZulu-Natal South AfricaR01AI124389 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL · PI BARNIGHAUSEN, TILL, TANSER, FRANK COURTENEY · 2016 to 2020
$2.1M
British Heart FoundationDepartment of HealthFIC NIH HHS D43 TW009775NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI112339NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI124389NIA NIH HHS P01 AG041710NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD084233Wellcome Trust 109949/Z/15/ZWellcome Trust 201900/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust 206471/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUniversal access to safe drinking water and sanitation facilities is an essential human right, recognised in the Sustainable Development Goals as crucial for preventing disease and improving human wellbeing. Comprehensive, high-resolution estimates are important to inform progress towards achieving this goal. We aimed to produce high-resolution geospatial estimates of access to drinking water and sanitation facilities.

methodsWe used a Bayesian geostatistical model and data from 600 sources across more than 88 low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) to estimate access to drinking water and sanitation facilities on continuous continent-wide surfaces from 2000 to 2017, and aggregated results to policy-relevant administrative units. We estimated mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive subcategories of facilities for drinking water (piped water on or off premises, other improved facilities, unimproved, and surface water) and sanitation facilities (septic or sewer sanitation, other improved, unimproved, and open defecation) with use of ordinal regression. We also estimated the number of diarrhoeal deaths in children younger than 5 years attributed to unsafe facilities and estimated deaths that were averted by increased access to safe facilities in 2017, and analysed geographical inequality in access within LMICs.

findingsAcross LMICs, access to both piped water and improved water overall increased between 2000 and 2017, with progress varying spatially. For piped water, the safest water facility type, access increased from 40·0% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 39·4-40·7) to 50·3% (50·0-50·5), but was lowest in sub-Saharan Africa, where access to piped water was mostly concentrated in urban centres. Access to both sewer or septic sanitation and improved sanitation overall also increased across all LMICs during the study period. For sewer or septic sanitation, access was 46·3% (95% UI 46·1-46·5) in 2017, compared with 28·7% (28·5-29·0) in 2000. Although some units improved access to the safest drinking water or sanitation facilities since 2000, a large absolute number of people continued to not have access in several units with high access to such facilities (>80%) in 2017. More than 253 000 people did not have access to sewer or septic sanitation facilities in the city of Harare, Zimbabwe, despite 88·6% (95% UI 87·2-89·7) access overall. Many units were able to transition from the least safe facilities in 2000 to safe facilities by 2017; for units in which populations primarily practised open defecation in 2000, 686 (95% UI 664-711) of the 1830 (1797-1863) units transitioned to the use of improved sanitation. Geographical disparities in access to improved water across units decreased in 76·1% (95% UI 71·6-80·7) of countries from 2000 to 2017, and in 53·9% (50·6-59·6) of countries for access to improved sanitation, but remained evident subnationally in most countries in 2017.

interpretationOur estimates, combined with geospatial trends in diarrhoeal burden, identify where efforts to increase access to safe drinking water and sanitation facilities are most needed. By highlighting areas with successful approaches or in need of targeted interventions, our estimates can enable precision public health to effectively progress towards universal access to safe water and sanitation.

fundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesDrinking WaterBayes TheoremDiarrheaGeographic MappingHumansModels, StatisticalSanitationSocioeconomic FactorsDrinking Water

Identifiers

PMID32827479
PMCPMC7443708

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.