ArticlePloS one2026
Implementing a climate-resilient and inclusive WASH guidance in Indonesia: A mixed-methods case study.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Climate change increasingly disrupts water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services, disproportionately affecting women, children, people with disabilities, and groups with limited adaptive resources. Evidence remains limited on how WASH programs integrate climate resilience, equity, and social inclusion and on the conditions that enable benefits to reach households. Researchers examined how Climate Change Response for Inclusive WASH (CCRIW) guidance was implemented and adapted within routine programming in Indonesia, how implementation outcomes related to post-implementation household access, and which contextual factors enabled or constrained such access. Researchers conducted a mixed-methods study using program data collected between August 2023 and October 2024. Data included key informant interviews (n = 29) and a group discussion (n = 10). Quantitative data included village workshop records (n = 91) and household surveys and observations (n = 1,243) from 12 villages affected by floods, landslides, and drought. Researchers used descriptive statistics and logistic regression and triangulated the findings with deductive qualitative analysis informed by an implementation science framework. Results indicated that CCRIW guidance was perceived as relevant but was adapted during implementation rather than adopted as a complete stand-alone protocol. These adaptations appeared to improve short-term practicality while reducing consistent application, depth of learning, and recall of CCRIW as a distinct approach. Communities primarily adopted lower-cost actions aligned with immediate needs, available resources, and perceived feasibility. Household modifications supported more resilient and inclusive access but could not replace system-level investments under severe hazards. Regression models showed district-level associations for several facility-specific outcomes, limited associations with multiple-hazard exposure, and no consistent associations with reported household characteristics. The findings suggest that CCRIW could connect lived hazard experience with inclusive WASH assessment and local planning but should be embedded within sequenced programming that provides a WASH inclusion foundation and coordinated institutional support to address risks beyond household and village capacity.
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.