ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2025
Factors associated with health worker adoption of facial and environmental hygiene promotion in the 'SAFE strategy' for trachoma elimination in Western Province, Zambia.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2025. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTrachoma is responsible for the blindness or visual impairment of about 1.9 million people and causes about 1.4% of all blindness worldwide. In Zambia, trachoma is endemic and Western Province is one of the most affected provinces. The SAFE (surgery, antibiotics, facial cleanliness and environmental improvement) strategy is recommended for elimination of trachoma. In many settings, interventions particularly for facial cleanliness and environmental improvement are sub-optimally adopted due to lack of prioritization and inadequate funding of intervention activities. This study sought to establish the level of, and factors associated with adoption of facial and environmental hygiene promotion in the SAFE strategy among health workers in Western Province, Zambia. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsThis was a cross-sectional study involving 24 health facilities selected from three districts using stratified random sampling. A total of 388 health workers comprising environmental health officers, community health assistants and community health workers were randomly selected. Adoption of facial and environmental hygiene promotion was self-reported, defined as participation in community distribution of information, education and communication (IEC) materials or community demonstrations of correct hand and face washing methods or both, within the past six months. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify the factors associated with adoption using STATA Version 15. The study was conducted in March and April 2023. Adoption of facial and environmental hygiene promotion was low at 47.68%. Having readily available transport (AOR = 3.06. 95% CI = [1.38, 6.80]), perceiving the intervention as relevant for trachoma prevention (AOR = 7.78, 95% CI = [4.38, 13.82]), having been trained in F and E (AOR = 2.17, 95% CI = [1.24, 3.78]) and availability of information, education and communication materials (AOR = 3.04, 95% CI = [1.69, 5.46]) were associated with higher odds of adoption of facial and environmental hygiene promotion among health workers. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: There was low adoption of facial and environmental hygiene promotion among health workers influenced by training, transport availability, IEC material availability and perceived relevance and complexity of the intervention. To increase adoption of facial and environmental hygiene promotion, program implementers must ensure that they consider the identified factors in the planning of the intervention activities.
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.