A tool for the assessment of the risk drivers and public perception of WASH in South Africa.

Phindile Madikizela, Janice Limson, Ronen Fogel, Jozef Ristvej, Roman Tandlich

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Jamba (Potchefstroom, South Africa), 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

5 authors.

Phindile MadikizelaDisaster Management and Ethics Research Group, Faculty of Pharmacy, Rhodes University, Makhanda, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4528-214X

Janice LimsonBiotechnology Innovation Centre, Faculty of Science, Rhodes University, Makhanda, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9955-3518

Ronen FogelBiotechnology Innovation Centre, Faculty of Science, Rhodes University, Makhanda, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5564-946X

Jozef RistvejDepartment of Crisis Management, Faculty of Security Engineering, University of Žilina, Žilina, Slovakia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2290-1470

Roman TandlichDisaster Management and Ethics Research Group, Faculty of Pharmacy, Rhodes University, Makhanda, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9696-0473

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Temporal trend analysis of the Google-search volumes and terms related to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in South Africa was performed using a computer plugin between January 2004 and June 2022. This study was conducted as WASH has played an important role in the containment of the recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and it is also one of the most effective and easiest-to-deploy tools in decreasing risk from infectious diseases. For the WASH-related terms, the monthly search volumes ranged from the minimum average of 480 for pit latrines to the maximum of 30236 for diarrhea or diarrhoea for the studied period. The Spearman correlation coefficients ranged from -0.29462 to 0.96647, with the Contribution: Therefore, the study findings could be used to optimise the design and targeting of public awareness campaigns on WASH during the coronavirus pandemic or similar infectious disease burdens and related disaster risks.

Indexed as

disaster riskonline search volumespluginpublic interestrapid assessmentWASH

Identifiers

PMID39512860

DOI10.4102/jamba.v16i2.1782

PMCPMC11538143

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.