ArticleBMC public health2026
Assessment of water, sanitation and hygiene interventions in primary schools: a case study of Uasin Gishu County, Kenya.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccess to safe water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in schools is essential for children’s health, wellbeing and learning. However, data on school WASH in Kenya remain limited. This study aimed to assess the availability, functionality, and management of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions in primary schools in Uasin Gishu County to inform policy and practice.
methodsA mixed-methods case study was conducted in 51 proportionally sampled primary schools (24 rural, 27 urban) out of 498 in the county. Quantitative data were collected using structured questionnaires and observation checklists administered to head teachers or their representatives. Qualitative data were obtained through focus group discussions (FGDs) with teachers. Descriptive statistics were generated in R; qualitative data were thematically analyzed in NVivo.
resultsThe mean school population was 586 pupils. Sixty one percent of schools had access to piped water; 49% of schools relied on protected wells, and 24% of schools collected rainwater. Many schools used multiple water sources, so these percentages were not mutually exclusive. Seventy three percent of the schools lacked disability-friendly infrastructure for water supply access points. Median pupil toilet cubicles were 18 [IQR: 14–22]; 98% of schools had separate staff and pupil toilets. Two-thirds, 67% of schools reported availability of water for hand washing throughout the day, yet 59% of the schools lacked soap at hand washing points. Three-quarters, 75% of schools provided menstrual products. However, only 22% of schools had changing rooms and 25% of schools had sanitary disposal facilities. A WASH policy document was absent in 67% of the schools. Private schools generally showed better operation and maintenance indicators of WASH interventions than public schools.
conclusionsWASH interventions in the surveyed schools were inadequate and unevenly distributed, with notable gaps in disability inclusion, menstrual hygiene management and policy implementation. Strengthening routine water quality testing, upgrading sanitation infrastructure, ensuring soap availability, and implementing inclusive WASH and menstrual hygiene policies can significantly improve pupil health, reduce disease transmission, and promote equity in educational settings.
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.