Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38633363›Full record

ArticleACS ES&T water2024

Reinforcing Feedbacks for Sustainable Implementation of Rural Drinking-Water Treatment Technology.

Merel Laauwen, Saskia Nowicki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACS ES&T water, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Merel LaauwenSchool of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, U.K.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5245-5959
Saskia NowickiSchool of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, U.K.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9011-6901

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/Y503174/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Progress toward universal access to safe drinking water depends on rural water service delivery models that incorporate water safety management. Water supplies of all types have high rates of fecal contamination unless water safety risks are actively managed through water source protection, treatment, distribution, and storage. Recognizing the role of treatment within this broader risk-based framework, this study focuses on the implementation of passive chlorination and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection technologies in rural settings. These technologies can reduce the health risk from microbiological contaminants in drinking water; however, technology-focused treatment interventions have had limited sustainability in rural settings. This study examines the requirements for sustainable implementation of rural water treatment through qualitative content analysis of 26 key informant interviews, representing passive chlorination and UV disinfection projects in rural areas in South America, Africa, and Asia. The analysis is aligned with the RE-AIM framework and delivers insight into 18 principal enablers and barriers to rural water treatment sustainability. Analysis of the interrelationships among these factors identifies leverage points and encourages fit-for-purpose intervention design reinforced by collaboration between facilitating actors through hybrid service delivery models. Further work should prioritize health impact evidence, water quality reporting guidance, and technological capabilities that optimize trade-offs in fit-for-purpose treatment design.

Identifiers

PMID38633363
PMCPMC11019543

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.