ArticleOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2026
Formative research for a One Health, animal-inclusive approach to Community-Led Total Sanitation in rural Mali.
Article in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Development and implementation of an animal-inclusive Community-Led Total Sanitation program for rural Mali.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite its focus on preventing human fecal matter from entering the environment, Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) places little emphasis on animal feces management. Integrating safe management of animal waste into an existing community-level program to safely manage human feces may substantially reduce overall exposure to feces and improve both human and animal health. Methods: We conducted formative research to inform the development of an animal-inclusive CLTS intervention in rural Mali. Across five villages eligible for the national CLTS program, we conducted focus group discussions and individual interviews with livestock owners, child caregivers, and other community stakeholders, unstructured observations of households with young children, a household-level survey, and community workshops. Results: Our results highlight the close interactions between men, women, boys, and girls with a range of domestic animals, animal products, and animal waste, including fecal waste. We documented animal husbandry practices beyond feces management that may impact human, animal, and/or environmental health, including unhygienic milking and slaughtering practices, and the management of sick animals, along with generally low awareness and knowledge about zoonotic diseases. Conclusions: Integrated interventions, like an animal-inclusive approach to CLTS, should be informed by both WASH and animal health sectors, and would benefit from a One Health perspective, where human, animal, and environmental health are accounted for. An animal-inclusive intervention should consider the types of animals present; gender- and age-specific roles that household members play in animal husbandry; potential interventions at critical control points; and context-specific practices, perceptions, and priorities that will influence intervention content and delivery.
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.