Pneumonia is a leading killer of children younger than 5 years despite high vaccination coverage, improved nutrition, and widespread implementation of the Integrated Management of Childhood Illnesses algorithm. Assessing the effect of interventions on childhood pneumonia is challenging because the choice of case definition and surveillance approach can affect the identification of pneumonia substantially. In anticipation of an intervention trial aimed to reduce childhood pneumonia by lowering household air pollution, we created a working group to provide recommendations regarding study design and implementation. We suggest to, first, select a standard case definition that combines acute (≤14 days) respiratory symptoms and signs and general danger signs with ancillary tests (such as chest imaging and pulse oximetry) to improve pneumonia identification; second, to prioritise active hospital-based pneumonia surveillance over passive case finding or home-based surveillance to reduce the risk of non-differential misclassification of pneumonia and, as a result, a reduced effect size in a randomised trial; and, lastly, to consider longitudinal follow-up of children younger than 1 year, as this age group has the highest incidence of severe pneumonia.

Few rural sanitation programs have documented large increases in sanitation coverage or have assessed if interventions equitably increase sanitation coverage for vulnerable groups. We characterize the impact of the Sustainable Sanitation and Hygiene for All (SSH4A) approach on key program WASH (water, sanitation, and hygiene) indicators, and also assess if these increases in WASH coverage are equitably reaching vulnerable groups. The SSH4A approach was administered in 12 program areas in 11 countries, including Bhutan, Ethiopia, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Mozambique, Nepal, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. Repeated cross-sectional household surveys were administered over four rounds at annual follow-up rounds from 2014 to 2018. Surveys were conducted in an average of 21,411 households at each round of data collection. Overall, sanitation coverage increased by 53 percentage points between baseline and the final round of data collection (95% CI: 52%, 54%). We estimate that 4.8 million people gained access to basic sanitation in these areas during the project period. Most countries also demonstrated movement up the sanitation ladder, in addition to increases in handwashing stations and safe disposal of child feces. When assessing equity—if sanitation coverage levels were similar comparing vulnerable and non-vulnerable groups—we observed that increases in coverage over time were generally comparable between vulnerable groups and non-vulnerable groups. However, the increase in sanitation coverage was slightly higher for higher wealth households compared to lower wealth households. Results from this study revealed a successful model of rural sanitation service delivery. However, further work should be done to explore the specific mechanisms that led to success of the intervention.

No abstract

IntroductionIncreases in global childhood vaccine delivery have led to decreases in morbidity from vaccine-preventable diseases. However, these improvements in vaccination have been heterogeneous, with some countries demonstrating greater levels of change and sustainability. Understanding what these high-performing countries have done differently and how their decision-making processes will support targeted improvements in childhood vaccine delivery.Methods and analysisWe studied three countries - Nepal, Senegal, Zambia - with exemplary improvements in coverage between 2000-2018 as part of the Exemplars in Global Health Program. We apply established implementation science frameworks to understand the “how” and “why” underlying improvements in vaccine delivery and coverage. Through mixed methods research we will identify drivers of catalytic change in vaccine coverage and the decision-making process supporting these interventions and activities. Methods include quantitative analysis of available datasets and in-depth interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders in the global, national, and sub-national government and non-governmental organization space, as well as community members and local health delivery system personnel.Ethics and disseminationWorking as a multinational and multidisciplinary team, and under oversight from all partner and national-level (where applicable) institutional review boards, we collect data from participants who provided informed consent. Findings are disseminated through a variety of forms, including peer-reviewed manuscripts related to country-specific case studies and vaccine system domain-specific analyses, presentations to key stakeholders in the global vaccine delivery space, and narrative dissemination on the Exemplars.Health website.Strengths and limitations of this studyThis study is led by a multidisciplinary team and grounded in several theoretical frameworks across disciplines from implementation science to behavioral theory.We utilized a cross cutting, cross-disciplinary, approach, which assessed relevant domains across our selected exemplars countries as well as within the subjects that arise from the data, over a roughly 20-year time horizon.We selected three countries with historically high unvaccinated populations to represent different geographies, cultures, and governments, as well as to highlight regions with historically high unvaccinated populations.We did not study a less successful, or “non-exemplar”, counterfactual country.The research tools identified and explored catalytic events and the implementation of external policies and development of internal policies and systems, with a focus on participants’ current experiences and perceptions of prior activities.

No abstract