SynthesisBMJ global health2025
Effectiveness of measures taken by governments to support hand hygiene in community settings: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping policy gaps and governance challenges in Kenya's hand hygiene environment: a health policy triangle analysis.Health policy and planning · 2026Article
- Guidance and ablutions: optimising hand hygiene in public health.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- We have the evidence but governments must now build the systems to deliver on hand hygiene.BMJ global health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis systematic review aimed to identify and evaluate the implementation of government measures that support equitable and sustained hand hygiene practices in community settings.
methodsWe systematically searched 12 databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, Cochrane Library, Global Index Medicus, Scopus, PAIS Index, WHO IRIS, UN Digital Library and World Bank eLibrary for peer-reviewed and grey literature published through late March 2023. Additional sources were identified through expert consultations and manual reference list checks of related reviews. Studies employing quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods designs were eligible. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Government measures were categorised according to the Sanitation and Water for All Building Blocks framework: sector policy strategy; institutional arrangements; sector financing; planning, monitoring, review; and capacity development. Hand hygiene outcomes were classified as access, behaviour change or enabling environment and impact as positive, null or not evaluated.
resultsThirty-one studies (24 journal articles and 7 grey literature) from 19 countries-mostly middle income (71%)-were included. Most focused on household (58%), schools (19%) or both (13%). A total of 75 government measures were identified, with sector policy strategy and capacity development being the most common (each 31%), followed by institutional arrangements (17%), planning, monitoring, review (13%) and sector financing (8%). Positive impacts were linked to 45 measures across all five Building Blocks in 17 studies.
conclusionThis systematic review highlights diverse government measures supporting hand hygiene in community settings, with sector policy strategy and capacity development being the most frequently reported. While many government measures showed positive impacts, gaps remain in financing, implementation and sustainability beyond households and schools. Strengthening governance, increasing investment and expanding research on cost-effectiveness and implementation barriers are essential to improve hygiene initiatives and ensure equitable access. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023429145.
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.