Enhancing a Safe Water Intervention with Student-Created Visual AIDS to Promote Handwashing Behavior in Kenyan Primary Schools

Graves, Janessa M.; Daniell, William; Harris, Julie; Obure, Alfredo; Quick, Robert

doi:10.2190/iq.32.4.d

Cited by 17 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Elements of psychosocial theory Andrade, 2013Guiteras et al (2015bHuda et al, 2012Jinadu et al, 2007Kochurani et al, 2009Patil et al, 2013Pattanayak et al, 2009Phuanukoonnon et al, 2013Pickering et al, 2015Waterkeyn & Cairncross, 2005) Younes et al, 2015Arnold et al, 2009Biran et al, 2009Briceno et al, 2015Cameron et al, 2013Dickey et al (2015) Galiani et al, 2012Pinfold, 1999Abiola et al, 2012Bowen et al, 2013Caruso et al, 2014Graves et al (2011) Guiteras et al (2015a) Kaewchana et al, 2012Lansdown et al, 2002Mascie-Taylor et al, 2003Pickering et al, 2013Seimetz et al, 2016Wang et al, 2013Zhang et al (2013 Figure 6 also lists the specific approach in each study and the WASH component for each study.…”

Section: Social Marketing Approach Sanitation and Hygiene Messagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 18 of the 32 studies (56%), not enough information was provided to determine if the method of random sequence generation was adequate. Abiola et al, 2012Biran et al, 2009Biran et al, 2014Bowen et al, 2013Briceno et al, 2015Cameron et al, 2013Caruso et al, 2014Chase & Do, 2012Galiani et al, 2012Graves et al, 2011Guiteras et al, 2015Guiteras et al, 2015bHuda et al, 2012Jinadu et al, 2007Kaewchana et al, 2012Lansdown et al, 2002Lhakhang et al, 2015Luby et al, 2010Mascie-Taylor et al, 2003Patil et al, 2013Pattanayak et al, 2009Phuanukoonnon et al, 2013Pickering et al, 2013Pickering et al, 2015Tumwebaze & Mosler, 2015Wang et al, 2013Zhang et al, 2013 green: low risk of bias; yellow: no information; red: high risk of bias…”

Section: • Random Sequence Generationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the study by Graves et al (2011), the effect of an additional communication strategy (poster contest), in addition to an existing educational intervention (hygiene messaging), was tested in Kenyan primary schools where a handwashing intervention was implemented. A statistically significant increase in handwashing after 4 months (MD 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.35]), and a significant change after 4 months (MD 0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.48]) when the additional poster contest was organized, could not be demonstrated.…”

Section: Hygiene Messaging With Poster Contest Versus Hygiene Messagimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Approaches to promote handwashing and sanitation behaviour change in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a mixed method systematic review

Buck¹,

Remoortel²,

Hannes³

et al. 2017

Campbell Systematic Reviews

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Campbell Systematic Review examines the effectiveness of different approaches for promoting handwashing and sanitation behaviour change, and factors affecting implementation, in low and middle‐income countries. The review summarises evidence from 42 impact evaluations, and from 28 qualitative studies. Community‐based approaches which include a sanitation component can increase handwashing with soap at key times; use of latrines and safe disposal of faeces; and reduce the frequency of open defecation. Social marketing seems less effective. The approach mainly shows an effect on sanitation outcomes when interventions combine handwashing and sanitation components. Sanitation and hygiene messaging with a focus on handwashing with soap has an effect after the intervention has ended, but there is little impact on sanitation outcomes. However, these effects are not sustainable in the long term. Using elements of psychosocial theory in a small‐scale handwashing promotion intervention, or adding theory‐based elements such as infrastructure promotion or public commitment to an existing promotional approach, seem promising for handwashing with soap. None of the approaches described have consistent effects on behavioural factors such as knowledge, skills and attitude. There are no consistent effects on health. Plain language summary Community‐based approaches are most effective in promoting changes in hygiene practices, but sustainability is a challengeCommunity‐based approaches to promote handwashing and sanitation efforts seem to work better than social marketing, messaging and interventions based on psychosocial theory. Programs combining hygiene and sanitation measures appears to have a larger impact than either one alone. What is this review about?Diarrhoeal diseases are very common causes of death in low and middle‐income countries. Improved sanitation and hygiene reduce diarrhoea, but adoption remains a challenge.This review assesses the evidence for two questions: (1) how effective are different approaches to promote handwashing and sanitation behaviour change; and (2) what factors influence the implementation of these approaches? What studies are included?Studies of effectiveness had to be impact evaluations using an experimental or quasi‐experimental design and analytical observational studies. Implementation studies used qualitative designs.Forty‐two quantitative studies and 28 qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria. The quantitative studies were conducted in LMICs worldwide, with the majority of the studies in South Asia and Sub‐Saharan Africa. What are the main findings of this review?Community‐based approaches which include a sanitation component can increase handwashing with soap at key times; use of latrines and safe disposal of faeces; and reduce the frequency of open defecation. Social marketing seems less effective. The approach mainly shows an effect on sanitation outcomes when interventions combine handwashing and sanitation components.Sanitation and hygiene messaging with a focus on hand...

show abstract

Section: Social Marketing Approach Sanitation and Hygiene Messagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: • Random Sequence Generationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hygiene Messaging With Poster Contest Versus Hygiene Messagimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Approaches to promote handwashing and sanitation behaviour change in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a mixed method systematic review

Buck¹,

Remoortel²,

Hannes³

et al. 2017

Campbell Systematic Reviews

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After deduplication, 1300 studies were screened by title and abstract and 43 studies selected for full‐text screening. Applying the pre‐defined inclusion criteria, eight studies were selected for inclusion in the final analysis . The flow diagram in Figure outlines the results of the database searches and the screening process, according to PRIMSA guidelines .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All studies targeted children of primary‐school age, between the ages of five and twelve. Seven of the studies selected for inclusion were implemented in primary schools and the one remaining study (Nicholson, 2014) was implemented in communities, but targeted five‐year‐old children attending the first grade of a primary school.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does targeting children with hygiene promotion messages work? The effect of handwashing promotion targeted at children, on diarrhoea, soil‐transmitted helminth infections and behaviour change, in low‐ and middle‐income countries

Watson

Ensink

Ramos

et al. 2017

Tropical Med Int Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstractobjectives To synthesise evidence on the effect of handwashing promotion interventions targeting children, on diarrhoea, soil-transmitted helminth infection and handwashing behaviour, in low-and middle-income country settings.methods A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching eight databases, and reference lists were hand-searched for additional articles. Studies were reviewed for inclusion according to pre-defined inclusion criteria and the quality of all studies was assessed.results Eight studies were included in this review: seven cluster-randomised controlled trials and one cluster non-randomised controlled trial. All eight studies targeted children aged 5-12 attending primary school but were heterogeneous for both the type of intervention and the reported outcomes so results were synthesised qualitatively. None of the studies were of high quality and the large majority were at high risk of bias. The reported effect of child-targeted handwashing interventions on our outcomes of interest varied between studies. Of the different interventions reported, no one approach to promoting handwashing among children appeared most effective.conclusion Our review found very few studies that evaluated handwashing interventions targeting children and all had various methodological limitations. It is plausible that interventions which succeed in changing children's handwashing practices will lead to significant health impacts given that much of the attributable disease burden is concentrated in that age group. The current paucity of evidence in this area, however, does not permit any recommendations to be made as to the most effective route to increasing handwashing with soap practice among children in LMIC.

show abstract

Interventions promoting uptake of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) technologies in low‐ and middle‐income countries: An evidence and gap map of effectiveness studies

Chirgwin

Cairncross

Zehra

et al. 2021

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Lack of access to and use of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) cause 1.6 million deaths every year, of which 1.2 million are due to gastrointestinal illnesses like diarrhoea and acute respiratory infections like pneumonia. Poor WASH access and use also diminish nutrition and educational attainment, and cause danger and stress for vulnerable populations, especially for women and girls. The hardest hit regions are sub‐Saharan Africa and South Asia. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 calls for the end of open defecation, and universal access to safely managed water and sanitation facilities, and basic hand hygiene, by 2030. WASH access and use also underpin progress in other areas such as SDG1 poverty targets, SDG3 health and SDG4 education targets. Meeting the SDG equity agenda to “leave none behind” will require WASH providers prioritise the hardest to reach including those living remotely and people who are disadvantaged. Objectives Decision makers need access to high‐quality evidence on what works in WASH promotion in different contexts, and for different groups of people, to reach the most disadvantaged populations and thereby achieve universal targets. The WASH evidence map is envisioned as a tool for commissioners and researchers to identify existing studies to fill synthesis gaps, as well as helping to prioritise new studies where there are gaps in knowledge. It also supports policymakers and practitioners to navigate the evidence base, including presenting critically appraised findings from existing systematic reviews. Methods This evidence map presents impact evaluations and systematic reviews from the WASH sector, organised according to the types of intervention mechanisms, WASH technologies promoted, and outcomes measured. It is based on a framework of intervention mechanisms (e.g., behaviour change triggering or microloans) and outcomes along the causal pathway, specifically behavioural outcomes (e.g., handwashing and food hygiene practices), ill‐health outcomes (e.g., diarrhoeal morbidity and mortality), nutrition and socioeconomic outcomes (e.g., school absenteeism and household income). The map also provides filters to examine the evidence for a particular WASH technology (e.g., latrines), place of use (e.g., home, school or health facility), location (e.g., global region, country, rural and urban) and group (e.g., people living with disability). Systematic searches for published and unpublished literature and trial registries were conducted of studies in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Searches were conducted in March 2018, and searches for completed trials were done in May 2020. Coding of information for the map was done by two authors working independently. Impact evaluations were critically appraised according to methods of conduct and reporting. Systematic reviews were critically appraised using a new approach to assess theory‐based, mixed‐methods evidence synthesis. Results There has been an enormous growth in impact evaluations and systematic reviews of WASH ...

show abstract

Enhancing a Safe Water Intervention with Student-Created Visual AIDS to Promote Handwashing Behavior in Kenyan Primary Schools

Cited by 17 publications

References 30 publications

Approaches to promote handwashing and sanitation behaviour change in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a mixed method systematic review

Approaches to promote handwashing and sanitation behaviour change in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a mixed method systematic review

Does targeting children with hygiene promotion messages work? The effect of handwashing promotion targeted at children, on diarrhoea, soil‐transmitted helminth infections and behaviour change, in low‐ and middle‐income countries

Interventions promoting uptake of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) technologies in low‐ and middle‐income countries: An evidence and gap map of effectiveness studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About