Abstractobjective Access to improved water sources is rapidly expanding in rural central Vietnam. We examined one NGO-led piped water supply programme to assess the drinking water quality and health impacts of piped water systems where access to 'improved' water sources is already good.methods This longitudinal, prospective cohort study followed 300 households in seven project areas in Da Nang province, Vietnam: 224 households who paid for an on-plot piped water connection and 76 control households from the same areas relying primarily on 'improved' water sources outside the home. The 4-month study was intended to measure the impact of the NGO -led water programmes on households' drinking water quality and health and to evaluate system performance.results We found that: (i) households connected to a piped water supply had consistently better drinking water quality than those relying on other sources, including 'improved' sources and (ii) connected households experienced less diarrhoea than households without a piped water connection (adjusted longitudinal prevalence ratio: 0.57 (95% CI 0.39-0.86, P = 0.006) and households using an 'improved' source not piped to the plot: (adjusted longitudinal prevalence ratio: 0.59 (95% CI 0.39-0.91, P = 0.018).conclusions Our results suggest that on-plot water service yields benefits over other sources that are considered 'improved' by the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme.keywords water quality, diarrhoeal disease, water supply

No abstract

No abstract

Since the mid-twentieth century, the frequency and duration of hot days have increased globally due to anthropogenic climate change (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2018). Global temperature is very likely to increase up to 1.

Evaluation generates critical evidence about the effectiveness of health-focused climate adaptation, who receives what benefits, and how to improve program quality. However, using evaluation to improve climate adaptation outcomes with timeliness and context-specificity is uniquely challenging. The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention supports health departments to implement adaptation initiatives through the Climate-Ready States and Cities Initiative (CRSCI) grant and minimize negative health impacts of climate change via the Building Resilience Against Climate Effects (BRACE) framework, which includes evaluation. In this paper, we present current evaluation practice by describing the health-focused adaptation actions that were evaluated among CRSCI recipients, the evaluation approaches they used, and the barriers and enablers encountered. Using a mixed methods approach, we abstracted annual progress report and standardized performance measure data to characterize evaluation activities across 18 grant recipients using basic quantitative descriptive analysis. Through structured interviews with three grant recipients and standard team-based qualitative coding and analysis techniques, we developed qualitative case studies to explore evaluation barriers and enablers in richer context. Recipients reported 76 evaluations over the reporting period (2018–2021). Evaluated programs commonly addressed extreme weather (50.0%), followed by heat (27.6%). The most common purpose was to monitor implementation or improve delivery (57.9%). Case studies highlighted barriers to successful evaluation such as limited specialized evaluation expertise and staff time. Enablers included staff motivation to justify program expansion, strong relationships with community partners, and use of evaluation plans. Case studies revealed diverse strategies to seek input from stakeholders disproportionately impacted by climate change and to reduce health disparities. The experiences of CDC grant recipients provide an opportunity to better understand the barriers and enablers of climate and health evaluation practice and to identify practical strategies to expand the value of evaluation in this nascent field.