Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33041525›Full record

ArticleDevelopment policy review : the journal of the Overseas Development Institute2020

Global Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Research Priorities and Learning Challenges under Sustainable Development Goal 6.

Karen Setty, Alejandro Jiménez, Juliet Willetts, Mats Leifels, Jamie Bartram

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Development policy review : the journal of the Overseas Development Institute, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Adapting Translational Research Methods to Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Review
  8. Faster and safer: Research priorities in water and health.International journal of hygiene and environmental health · 2019
    Article
  9. 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

5 authors.

Karen SettyThe Water Institute at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, 166 Rosenau Hall, CB #7431, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7431.
Alejandro JiménezStockholm International Water Institute (SIWI), Linnégatan 87A, Box 101 87, 100 55 Stockholm, Sweden.
Juliet WillettsUniversity of Technology Sydney, Institute for Sustainable Futures, Bldg 10, 235 Jones St, Ultimo NSW 2007, Australia.
Mats LeifelsCentre for Water and Environmental Research (ZWU), University Duisburg-Essen, Universitätsstr. 2, 45141, Essen, Germany and University of Alberta, School of Public Health, 3-300 Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405 - 87 Ave, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9, Canada.
Jamie BartramThe Water Institute at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, 166 Rosenau Hall, CB #7431, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7431.

Funding

Biostatstics for Research in Environmental HealthT32ES007018 · NIEHS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Stephanie Engel, Rebecca Fry · 1985 to 2026
$31.3M
NIEHS NIH HHS T32 ES007018
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationSanitation and Water for All (SWA) is a global partnership addressing challenges to universal water, sanitation, and hygiene (WaSH) access. Shortly following adoption of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, the Research and Learning (R&L) constituency of SWA undertook a systematic study to determine global research priorities and learning needs. PURPOSE: We aimed to identify priority topics where improved knowledge would aid achievement of Goal 6, by developing a global WaSH research agenda, and to describe evidence-use challenges among WaSH professionals. APPROACH AND

methodsWe delivered a tailored, semi-structured electronic questionnaire to representatives from countries, R&L institutions, and other SWA partners (external support agencies, civil society, and private sector). The survey gathered views from 76 respondents working in an estimated 36 countries across all world regions. Data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively to identify patterns and themes.

findingsMost responses indicated lowered confidence on at least one Goal 6 target area, especially managing untreated wastewater and faecal sludge. Both brief and lengthy information formats were valued. WaSH information was perceived as conflicting or unreliable among non-R&L constituencies, suggesting differences in perceptions and information-seeking approaches. While the R&L constituency appeared saturated with learning and training opportunities, others perceived barriers to participating (e.g. not receiving notice or invitation). Research and other WaSH activities were frequently constrained by upward accountability to funders, while stakeholders were inconsistently included in research processes. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This study offers insight into perceived research and decision challenges related to Goal 6 targets. It develops a unified research agenda focused on high priority topics, and recommends renewed attention to evidence synthesis, learning and implementation support, research engagement, and multisectoral coordination.

Indexed as

Capacity BuildingResearch TranslationScience–Policy InterfaceSDGWaSH

Identifiers

PMID33041525
PMCPMC7546406

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.