ArticleCureus2026
Evaluating Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Services in Healthcare Facilities: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study Using the WHO Water and Sanitation for Health Facility Improvement Tool (WASH FIT).
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services are foundational to safe health care delivery and infection prevention, yet facility-level evidence from Pakistan remains limited. This study assessed and compared WASH services at two hospitals using the World Health Organization's Water and Sanitation for Health Facility Improvement Tool (WASH FIT). Methods A comparative cross-sectional assessment was conducted in December 2025 at two hospitals in Rawalpindi (Hospital A) and Islamabad (Hospital B). Two teams of assessors independently evaluated both facilities through structured observation and record review. Indicators were scored on the standard WASH FIT scale across seven domains, and service levels assigned using JMP core-indicator criteria. To ensure comparison against an identical indicator set, five indicators that did not apply equally to both facilities owing to service configuration or cross-referencing within another domain were excluded, yielding an analytical set of 97 indicators scored in both facilities. Results Hospital A scored 147 of 194 points (75.8%) and Hospital B 127 of 194 (65.5%). Hospital A met basic service criteria in four of five domains with defined JMP ladders, compared with two of five in Hospital B. Among these five domains, hand hygiene was strongest, 10/10 (100%) and 9/10 (90%), and sanitation weakest, 15/26 (57.7%) and 12/26 (46.2%). The largest difference between facilities was in management and workforce, 16/24 (66.7%) versus 7/24 (29.2%). Both scored higher on essential than advanced indicators: 76/82 (92.7%) versus 50/82 (61.0%); 67/82 (81.7%) versus 41/82 (50.0%). Sixteen indicators were unmet in both facilities, concentrated in wastewater management, laundry infrastructure, and institutional planning. Conclusion Both hospitals demonstrated moderate WASH performance, with the largest difference observed in management and workforce rather than infrastructure. Strengthening governance and workforce capacity alongside infrastructure may improve WASH performance in resource-limited healthcare facilities.
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.