Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41931475›Full record

SynthesisPLoS medicine2026

Cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost analyses of promoting handwashing with soap: A systematic review.

Ian Ross, David Bath, Joseph Wells, Robert Dreibelbis, Regina Ejemot-Nwadiaro, Joanna Esteves Mills, Giulia Greco, Catherine Pitt, Oliver Cumming

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Ian RossGlobal Health Economics Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2218-5400
David BathGlobal Health Economics Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7742-7721
Joseph WellsDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1660-8681
Robert DreibelbisDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9716-0419
Regina Ejemot-NwadiaroDepartment of Public Health, Kampala International University, Kampala, Uganda.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9342-9230
Joanna Esteves MillsWater, Sanitation, Hygiene and Health Unit, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5220-1424
Giulia GrecoGlobal Health Economics Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Catherine PittGlobal Health Economics Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4967-8966
Oliver CummingDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5074-8709

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPromoting handwashing with soap reduces risk of diarrhoea by 30% and respiratory infections by 17%. Handwashing promotion in nonhealthcare settings is widely considered cost-effective, but there is no systematic review on this topic. To inform resource allocation decisions, we reviewed the state and quality of evidence regarding cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost of interventions promoting handwashing with soap in domestic, educational, and childcare settings globally. METHODS AND

findingsWe searched Medline, Embase, Global Health, EconLit, and Web of Science for studies published from January 1, 1980 to September 3, 2025, as well as grey literature (PROSPERO CRD42021288727). We included full economic evaluations comparing the cost of two or more interventions with their outcomes. We included interventions promoting the practice of handwashing with soap, including those providing information, motivational campaigns, and/or handwashing facilities. We scored quality of reporting using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. We identified 15 studies of which 3 were in high-income countries. Five used empirical data collection to evaluate interventions actually implemented and 10 modelled from secondary data only. Amongst the 3 medium- or high-quality studies reporting cost per disability-adjusted life-year averted, estimates ranged from US$ 37 to 937 (2024 prices). Of these 3 estimates, 2 were cost-effective compared to plausible thresholds for the respective country. In the only medium- or high-quality benefit-cost study, the mean benefit-cost ratio was 2.1 with "medium" levels of handwashing adoption (40% of population) and adherence (50% of those adopting). Few studies measured or modelled adoption of handwashing over time, and none which focussed on diarrhoea also valued respiratory infections. Limitations of our review include that we excluded alcohol-based handrub interventions, and that there is high uncertainty about cost-effectiveness thresholds.

conclusionsPromoting handwashing with soap is very likely to be cost-effective for interventions that successfully increase and sustain adoption of handwashing behaviours. More empirical studies are needed, especially those comparing multiple promotion options and valuing reductions in respiratory infections as well as diarrhoea.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDiarrheaHand DisinfectionHealth PromotionSoapsCost-Effectiveness AnalysisHumansRespiratory Tract InfectionsSoaps

Identifiers

PMID41931475
PMCPMC13065014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.