ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Implementation and adaptation of WASH FIT in healthcare facilities: A systematic scoping review.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Environmental health services (e.g., water, sanitation, hygiene, energy) are important for patient safety and strong health systems, yet services in many low- and middle-income countries are poor. To address this, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) developed the Water and Sanitation for Health Facility Improvement Tool (WASH FIT) to drive improvements. While widely used, there is currently no systematic documentation of how WASH FIT has been adapted in different contexts and the implications of these adaptations. We conducted a systematic scoping review to assess WASH FIT adaptation and implementation, specifically evaluating context and implementing stakeholders, the WASH FIT process and adaptation, and good practices for implementation. Our search yielded 20 studies. Implementation was typically government-led or had a high level of government engagement. Few details on healthcare facility contexts were reported. Adaptation was widespread, with nearly all studies deviating from the five-step WASH FIT cycle as designed in the WHO/UNICEF manual. Notably, many studies conducted only one facility assessment and one or no rounds of improvement. However, reporting quality across studies was poor, and some steps may have been conducted but not reported. Despite substantial deviations, WASH FIT was favorably described by all studies. Good practices for implementation included adequate resourcing, government leadership, and providing WASH FIT teams with sufficient training and autonomy to implement improvements. Low-quality reporting and a high degree of adaptation make it challenging to determine how and why WASH FIT achieves change. We hypothesize that healthcare-facility level action by WASH FIT teams to assess conditions and implement improvements has some effect. However, advocacy that uses WASH FIT indicators to highlight deficiencies and promotion of WASH FIT by WHO and UNICEF to pressure governments to act may be equally or more powerful drivers of change. More rigorous evidence to understand how and why WASH FIT works is essential to improve its performance and inform scale-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.