ObjectiveProgress towards equitable and sufficient water has primarily been measured by population-level data on water availability. However, higher-resolution measures of water accessibility, adequacy, reliability and safety (ie, water insecurity) are needed to understand how problems with water impact health and well-being. Therefore, we developed the Household Water InSecurity Experiences (HWISE) Scale to measure household water insecurity in an equivalent way across disparate cultural and ecological settings.MethodsCross-sectional surveys were implemented in 8127 households across 28 sites in 23 low-income and middle-income countries. Data collected included 34 items on water insecurity in the prior month; socio-demographics; water acquisition, use and storage; household food insecurity and perceived stress. We retained water insecurity items that were salient and applicable across all sites. We used classical test and item response theories to assess dimensionality, reliability and equivalence. Construct validity was assessed for both individual and pooled sites using random coefficient models.FindingsTwelve items about experiences of household water insecurity were retained. Items showed unidimensionality in factor analyses and were reliable (Cronbach’s alpha 0.84 to 0.93). The average non-invariance rate was 0.03% (threshold <25%), indicating equivalence of measurement and meaning across sites. Predictive, convergent and discriminant validity were also established.ConclusionsThe HWISE Scale measures universal experiences of household water insecurity across low-income and middle-income countries. Its development ushers in the ability to quantify the prevalence, causes and consequences of household water insecurity, and can contribute an evidence base for clinical, public health and policy recommendations regarding water.

Background Increasing the prevalence of optimal breastfeeding practices, including exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months, could prevent an estimated 823,000 child deaths annually. Self-efficacy is an important determinant of breastfeeding behaviors. However, existing measures do not specifically assess exclusive breastfeeding self-efficacy, but rather self-efficacy for any breastfeeding. Hence, we sought to adapt and validate an instrument to measure exclusive breastfeeding self-efficacy. Methods We modified and added items from Dennis’ Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale-Short Form (BSES-SF). It was then implemented in an observational cohort in Gulu, Uganda at 1 ( n = 239) and 3 ( n = 238) months postpartum ( clinicaltrials.gov NCT02925429). We performed inter-item and adjusted item-test correlations, as well as exploratory factor analysis and parallel analysis at 1 month postpartum to remove redundant items and determine their latent factor structure. We further applied confirmatory factor analysis to test dimensionality of the scale at 3 months postpartum. We then assessed the reliability of the scale and conducted tests of predictive and discriminant validity. Known group comparisons were made by primiparous status and correct breastfeeding knowledge. Results The modification of the original BSES-SF to target exclusive breastfeeding produced 19 items, which were reduced to 9 based on item correlations and factor loadings. Two dimensions of the adapted scale, the Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale to Measure Exclusive Breastfeeding BSES-EBF emerged: Cognitive and Functional subscales, with alpha coefficients of 0.85 and 0.79 at 3 months postpartum. Predictive and discriminant validity and known group comparisons assessments supported its validity. Conclusions This version of the Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy scale, the BSES-EBF Scale, is valid and reliable for measuring exclusive breastfeeding self-efficacy in northern Uganda, and ready for adaptation and validation for clinical and programmatic use elsewhere. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-019-2217-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) for 6 months and continued breastfeeding for at least 2 years. Social support has been widely recognized to influence breastfeeding practices. However, existing scales do not measure exclusive breastfeeding social support (EBFSS), rather they assess social support for any breastfeeding. Further, they are tailored towards high-income settings. Therefore, our objectives were to develop and validate a tool to measure EBFSS in low-income settings. To develop the scale, local and international breastfeeding experts were consulted on modifications to the Hughes' Breastfeeding Social Support Scale. It was then implemented in an observational cohort in Gulu, Uganda, at 1 (n = 238) and 3 (n = 237) months post-partum (NCT02925429). We performed polychoric and polyserial correlations to remove redundant items and exploratory factor analysis at 1 month post-partum to determine the latent factor structure of EBFSS. We further applied confirmatory factor analysis to assess dimensionality of the scale at 3 months post-partum. We then conducted tests of predictive, convergent, and discriminant validity against EBF, self-efficacy, general social support, and depression. The modification of the Hughes' scale resulted in 18 items, which were reduced to 16 after examining variances and factor loadings. Three dimensions of support emerged: Instrumental, Emotional, and Informational, with alpha coefficients of 0.79, 0.85, and 0.83, respectively. Predictive, convergent, and discriminant validity of the resultant EBFSS scale was supported. The EBFSS scale is valid and reliable for measuring EBFSS in northern Uganda and may be of use in other low-income settings to assess determinants of EBF.

Household water insecurity is a complex socioecological challenge with a range of consequences for health and wellbeing. Understanding individual and household‐level coping strategies, i.e., responses or adaptations to manage water insecurity, can shape future research and development practice. We therefore (a) systematically describe the characteristics and contexts of 173 studies documenting coping strategies and (b) classify the types of strategies within four domains of water insecurity: access, use, quality, and reliability. Most studies were from Sub‐Saharan Africa or South Asia. In the domain of access, the most common coping strategies were building infrastructure, and storing, purchasing, and sharing water. For use, changing food consumption, agricultural practices, and hygiene were most frequently mentioned. For quality, water treatment was the most common strategy. To ensure water reliability, people most frequently reported changing routines or relocating their homes altogether. Our review provides a useful framework to understand coping strategies, but more research is needed to address three gaps in particular. First, we recommend more representative exploration of the range of coping strategies, particularly in middle‐ and high‐income countries. Second, the links between coping with water insecurity and a range of other nutritional, social, financial, and health outcomes need to be better understood to address overall household wellbeing. Third, we recommend the development of a metric to quantify individual and household‐level water insecurity‐related coping strategies. This line of inquiry can enable practitioners to design and implement context‐specific interventions that leverage preexisting strategies to improve experiences of water insecurity. This article is categorized under: Human Water > Water Governance Engineering Water > Planning Water