ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Climate change, disability, and water, sanitation and hygiene: A scoping review of evidence and interventions in low and middle-income countries.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementing a climate-resilient and inclusive WASH guidance in Indonesia: A mixed-methods case study.PloS one · 2026Article
- The interaction between children and the environment: an agenda for health.Cadernos de saude publica · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Climate hazards, including extreme weather events, undermine essential water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services, exacerbating health disparities in people with disabilities. Despite this, WASH policies and adaptation strategies often overlook the need for disability inclusive measures. The scoping review objectives are to 1) map the evidence on how climate risks affect WASH services and coping strategies in low-and middle-income countries, with a particular focus on people with disabilities; and 2) assess evidence for the effectiveness of climate-resilient WASH interventions, emphasising their impact on people with disabilities. Our review identified substantial data on women and girls, so the results reflect binary gender considerations. A systematic search of nine databases, including CINAHL Complete, Global Health, GreenFILE, and MEDLINE via PubMed, was conducted to identify peer-reviewed and grey literature using relevant keywords related to extreme weather and climate hazards, WASH (including menstrual health), disability, and evaluations. We included studies in English, published between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2023. Data were extracted and analysed thematically. Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Only two papers evaluated climate-resilient WASH interventions (rainwater harvesting), and neither considered disability. Most papers examined people's self-reported health impacts and experiences affected by drought-related water insecurity or WASH infrastructure damage due to extreme weather events. Data on the experiences of persons with disabilities were only included in two papers. They highlighted that persons with disabilities are disproportionately disadvantaged by climate-related damage to WASH infrastructure and emphasised the importance of social capital and social networks in supporting them when access to water is limited. Extreme weather events disrupt WASH services, yet evidence of the experiences and coping strategies of persons with disabilities remains extremely limited. This is a barrier to developing disability inclusive adaptation strategies. Evaluating climate-resilient WASH interventions is essential to enhance resilience and health equity for persons with disabilities.
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.