Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33534756›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2021

Could Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizer Be an Option for Hand Hygiene for Households in Rural Bangladesh?

Dalia Yeasmin, Notan C Dutta, Fosiul A Nizame, Musarrat J Rahman, Sania Ashraf, Pavani K Ram, Elli Leontsini, Mahbubur Rahman, Peter J Winch, Stephen P Luby and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

11 authors.

Dalia Yeasmin1International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr, b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Notan C Dutta1International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr, b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Fosiul A Nizame1International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr, b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Musarrat J Rahman1International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr, b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Sania Ashraf2The Center for Social Norms and Behavioral Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Pavani K Ram3Department of Epidemiology and Environmental Health, School of Public Health and Health Professions, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York.
Elli Leontsini4Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Mahbubur Rahman1International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr, b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Peter J Winch4Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Stephen P Luby5Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Leanne Unicomb1International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr, b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), hand sanitizer may be a convenient alternative to soap and water to increase hand hygiene practices. We explored perceptions, acceptability, and use of hand sanitizer in rural Bangladesh. We enrolled 120 households from three rural villages. Promoters distributed free alcohol-based hand sanitizer, installed handwashing stations (bucket with tap, stand, basin, and bottle for soapy water), and conducted household visits and community meetings. During Phase 1, promoters recommended handwashing with soap or soapy water, or hand sanitizer after defecation, after cleaning a child's anus/feces, and before food preparation. In Phase 2, they recommended separate key times for hand sanitizer: before touching a child ≤ 6 months and after returning home. Three to 4 months after each intervention phase, we conducted a survey, in-depth interviews, and group discussions with child caregivers and male household members. After Phase 1, 82/89 (92%) households reported handwashing with soap after defecation versus 38 (43%) reported hand sanitizer use. Participants thought soap and water removed dirt from their hands, whereas hand sanitizer killed germs. In Phase 2, 76/87 (87%) reported using hand sanitizer after returning home and 71/87 (82%) before touching a child ≤ 6 months. Qualitative study participants reported that Phase 2-recommended times for hand sanitizer use were acceptable, but handwashing with soap was preferred over hand sanitizer when there was uncertainty over choosing between the two. Hand sanitizer use was liked by household members and has potential for use in LMICs, including during the coronavirus pandemic.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAlcoholsBangladeshFamily CharacteristicsFemaleHand DisinfectionHand HygieneHand SanitizersHealth BehaviorHumansMaleMiddle AgedPovertyQualitative ResearchAlcoholsHand Sanitizers

Identifiers

PMID33534756
PMCPMC7941831

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.