Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36094954›Full record

SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2022

Acceptability measures of water, sanitation and hygiene interventions in low- and middle-income countries, a systematic review.

Rose Hosking, Suji Y O'Connor, Kinley Wangdi, Johanna Kurscheid, Aparna Lal

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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.

Rose HoskingNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Acton, Australia.
Suji Y O'ConnorNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Acton, Australia.
Kinley WangdiNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Acton, Australia.
Johanna KurscheidSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Associate Institute of University of Basel, Allschwil, Switzerland.
Aparna LalNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Acton, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7062-1468

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInadequate access to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) is an environmental risk factor for poor health outcomes globally, particularly for children in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Despite technological advancements, many interventions aimed at improving WASH access return less than optimal results on long term impact, efficacy and sustainability. Research focus in the 'WASH sector' has recently expanded from investigating 'which interventions work' to 'how they are best implemented'. The 'acceptability' of an intervention is a key component of implementation that can influence initial uptake and sustained use. Acceptability assessments are increasingly common for health interventions in clinical settings. A broad scale assessment of how acceptability has been measured in the WASH sector, however, has not yet been conducted. METHODS/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe conducted a systematic literature review of intervention studies published between 1990 and 2021 that evaluated the acceptability of WASH interventions in LMIC settings. Using an implementation science approach, focused outcomes included how acceptability was measured and defined, and the timing of acceptability assessment. We conducted quality assessment for all included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomised studies, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomised studies. Of the 1238 records; 36 studies were included for the analysis, 22 of which were non-randomized interventions and 16 randomized or cluster-randomized trials. We found that among the 36 studies, four explicitly defined their acceptability measure, and six used a behavioural framework to inform their acceptability study design. There were few acceptability evaluations in schools and healthcare facilities. While all studies reported measuring WASH acceptability, the measures were often not comparable or described.

conclusionsAs focus in WASH research shifts towards implementation, a consistent approach to including, defining, and measuring acceptability is needed.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesSanitationChildHumansHygieneWaterWater SupplyWater

Identifiers

PMID36094954
PMCPMC9499221

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.