Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39141680›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2024

Comparison of metrics for assessing face washing behaviour for trachoma control.

Katie Greenland, Claire Collin, Edao Sinba Etu, Meseret Guye, Demitu Hika, David Macleod, Wolf-Peter Schmidt, Oumer Shafi Abdurahman, Anna Last, Matthew J Burton

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Trachoma.Lancet (London, England) · 2025
    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.

Katie GreenlandDepartment for Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3331-0377
Claire CollinDepartment for Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, United Kingdom.
Edao Sinba EtuBerhan Public Health & Eye Care Consultancy, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Meseret GuyeThe Fred Hollows Foundation Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Demitu HikaThe Fred Hollows Foundation Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
David MacleodInternational Statistics and Epidemiology Group, LSHTM, London, United Kingdom.
Wolf-Peter SchmidtDepartment for Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, United Kingdom.
Oumer Shafi AbdurahmanThe Fred Hollows Foundation Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Anna LastInternational Centre for Eye Health, Clinical Research Department, LSHTM, London, United Kingdom.
Matthew J BurtonInternational Centre for Eye Health, Clinical Research Department, LSHTM, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is currently no single, easy-to-use, reliable indicator to assess whether a face has been washed with soap in the context of trachoma elimination. This study aimed to compare survey report, script-based pictorial recall and facial cleanliness indicators as alternatives to structured observation for measuring face washing behaviour. This method validation study was nested in the Stronger-SAFE trial, Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Structured observation was conducted in randomly selected households for three hours from dawn. The primary caregiver in each household participated in a survey to capture (self)-reported behaviour and/or script-based pictorial recall, a routine-based diary activity to covertly capture information on face washing behaviour of themself and any children aged 1-12. Children 4-12 years old directly participated in the survey and pictorial recall in a subset of households. The facial cleanliness of children aged 1-12 was assessed qualitatively and using the quantitative Personal Hygiene Assessment Tool (qPHAT). Prevalence estimates, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were computed for each behavioural indicator with observation data as the gold standard. The appropriateness of script-based pictorial recall was assessed using baseline and 3-month follow-up data. Baseline data were collected from 204 households in 68 clusters. Survey estimates of face washing and face washing with soap among caregivers and children were 32% to 60% and 5% to 31% higher than observed behaviour, respectively. Face washing prevalence estimates from pictorial recall were lower than survey estimates and comparable with observations for some face washing with soap indicators (0.3% to 13% higher than observations). Specificity of pictorial recall indicators was high (85% to 99%), but the sensitivity was low (0% to 67%), resulting in a low positive predictive value for all indicators. Both qualitative facial cleanliness indicators and qPHAT scores were poorly correlated with observed face washing earlier that morning. Pictorial recall overestimated face washing with soap among both caregivers and children following intervention delivery but not at baseline. Survey (self)-reported data on face washing is highly inaccurate. Script-based pictorial recall does not correctly classify those who wash their face with soap, and is subject to differential bias following intervention exposure, and facial cleanliness is a poor indicator of recent face washing in settings where faces become rapidly dirty again after washing. Alternatives to structured observation cannot be recommended to monitor the effectiveness of face washing interventions in community settings. Trial Registration ISRCTN registry ISRCTN40760473, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN40760473.

Indexed as

HygieneTrachomaAdultCaregiversChildChild, PreschoolEthiopiaFaceFemaleHumansInfantMalePrevalenceSensitivity and SpecificitySoapsSurveys and QuestionnairesSoaps

Identifiers

PMID39141680
PMCPMC11346966

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.