Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40335077›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2025

WASH and learn: a scoping review of health, education and gender equity outcomes of school-based water, sanitation and hygiene in low-income and middle-income countries.

Sarah Bick, Katherine Davies, Mwamba Mwenge, Clara MacLeod, Laura Braun, Jenala Chipungu, Kondwani Chidziwisano, Robert Dreibelbis

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Sarah BickDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6870-5320
Katherine DaviesDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-0452-1173
Mwamba MwengeCentre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
Clara MacLeodDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6952-9103
Laura BraunDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9319-0859
Jenala ChipunguDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Kondwani ChidziwisanoWASHTED Centre, Malawi University of Business and Applied Sciences, Blantyre, Malawi.
Robert DreibelbisDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK Robert.Dreibelbis@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9716-0419

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

School-age children in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) face health and educational challenges due to inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in schools (WinS). Evidence for the impact of WinS interventions is limited and inconsistent, and previous systematic reviews have faced challenges in synthesising data due to varied interventions, study designs and outcome measures, although most do not examine this variability in more detail. This scoping review identified 83 experimental studies from 33 LMICs measuring a primary or secondary health or educational outcome among pupils, published up to November 2023, using a systematic search of seven databases and searching of reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included articles. These included 65 studies (78%) not included in previous WinS reviews and encompassed 313 intervention effects across 14 outcome domains. Interventions comprised an array of WASH technologies and approaches, often combining infrastructure and behaviour change methods and frequently integrated with other school-based initiatives like deworming. 36 studies (43%) measured only behavioural or knowledge outcomes. Our comprehensive inventory of study outcomes identified 158 unique outcome measures, with 72% measured in exactly one study. Common outcomes included parasitic infections, anthropometric measures and school absence, but approaches to measurement varied widely even for similar outcomes. Only 7% of results were disaggregated by gender, limiting assessment of differential impacts. Our findings underscore the need for standardised outcome measures in WinS research incorporating a complete definition of the assessment and aggregation approach, greater attention to gender-specific impacts, and further exploration of modalities and functions of WinS interventions alongside novel meta-analysis methods to disentangle effects of diverse intervention components.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesGender EquityHygieneSanitationSchoolsWater SupplyChildFemaleHumansMaleChild healthEnvironmental healthEpidemiologyHygieneReview

Identifiers

PMID40335077
PMCPMC12056636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.