Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33234528›Full record

Trial reportBMJ global health2020

Impact of a demand-side integrated WASH and nutrition community-based care group intervention on behavioural change: a randomised controlled trial in western Kenya.

Matthew C Freeman, Anna S Ellis, Emily Awino Ogutu, Bethany A Caruso, Molly Linabarger, Katie Micek, Richard Muga, Amy Webb Girard, Breanna K Wodnik, Kimberly Jacob Arriola

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Matthew C FreemanGangarosa Department of Environmental Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA matthew.freeman@emory.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-1517-2572
Anna S EllisGangarosa Department of Environmental Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Emily Awino OgutuHubert Department of Global Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Bethany A CarusoHubert Department of Global Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9738-9857
Molly LinabargerHubert Department of Global Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Katie MicekGangarosa Department of Environmental Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Richard MugaFaculty of Health Sciences, Uzima University, Kisumu, Kenya.
Amy Webb GirardHubert Department of Global Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4414-720X
Breanna K WodnikHubert Department of Global Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1304-0194
Kimberly Jacob ArriolaDepartment of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4568-0225
Emory University · USUzima University College · KE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionGrowth shortfalls and diarrhoeal diseases remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality in low-income settings. Due to the multifaceted causes of undernutrition and the identified limitations of siloed nutrition programmes, improving the delivery of integrated water, sanitation, hygiene (WASH) and nutrition programming could improve child health.

methodsWe conducted a cluster randomised trial in western Kenya to assess the impact on household behaviours of a novel, theory-informed and integrated WASH and nutrition intervention delivered through care groups as compared with the standard care group approach. We developed an intervention targeting practices relating to food hygiene, mealtime and feeding, and compound cleanliness, each using various behavioural change techniques to influence the uptake of targeted behaviours. Prespecified behavioural outcomes were verified through direct observation, 24 hours recall, and self-reported picture-based methods.

resultsCompared with control households, a greater proportion of intervention households had a hygienic food preparation area (Risk double difference (RDD) 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.96), had stored food hygienically (RDD 0.76, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.00), had a functional handwashing station (RDD 0.64, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.74), provided a safe space for their child to play (RDD 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96), and who fed their children thickened porridge (RDD 0.56, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.63) at endline. The proportion of children 6-24 months in intervention households consuming a sufficient diversity of foods (RDD 0.81, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.04) was higher than in control households; however, there was a non-significant increase in the percentage of pregnant and lactating women receiving an adequate diversity of foods in their diets (RDD 0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.05) among intervention compared with control households at endline.

conclusionOur integrated WASH and nutrition intervention resulted in important changes in behaviours. This theory-informed intervention could be added to existing care group programmes to considerable advantage.

Indexed as

SanitationWaterChildFemaleHumansHygieneKenyaLactationPregnancyWatercluster randomized trialenvironmental healthhygienenutritionstunting

Identifiers

PMID33234528
PMCPMC7689101
OpenAlexW3107979228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.