Monitoring the inputs required to extend and sustain hygiene promotion: findings from the GLAAS 2013/2014 survey

Abstract

Abstractobjectives There are significant gaps in information about the inputs required to effectively extend and sustain hygiene promotion activities to improve people's health outcomes through water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions. We sought to analyse current country and global trends in the use of key inputs required for effective and sustainable implementation of hygiene promotion to help guide hygiene promotion policy and decision-making after 2015.methods Data collected in response to the GLAAS 2013/2014 survey from 93 countries of 94 were included, and responses were analysed for 12 questions assessing the inputs and enabling environment for hygiene promotion under four thematic areas. Data were included and analysed from 20 External Support Agencies (ESA) of 23 collected through self-administered surveys.results Firstly, the data showed a large variation in the way in which hygiene promotion is defined and what constitutes key activities in this area. Secondly, challenges to implement hygiene promotion are considerable: include poor implementation of policies and plans, weak coordination mechanisms, human resource limitations and a lack of available hygiene promotion budget data.conclusion Despite the proven benefits of hand washing with soap, a critical hygiene-related factor in minimising infection, GLAAS 2013/2014 survey data showed that hygiene promotion remains a neglected component of WASH. Additional research to identify the context-specific strategies and inputs required to enhance the effectiveness of hygiene promotion at scale are needed. Improved data collection methods are also necessary to advance the availability and reliability of hygiene-specific information.

Selection and co-selection of antibiotic resistances among Escherichia coli by antibiotic use in primary care: An ecological analysis

“…Patterns of co-resistance and co-selection likely differ between various parts of the world as there is substantial variation in selection pressure by antibiotics and infection prevention and control between countries [35,36]. However, we would even caution against direct comparison of results from another recent study from a region in England [37], as that study did not take into account prescribing of other antibiotics or the potential differences in the propensity to send in samples from patients.…”

Selection and co-selection of antibiotic resistances amongEscherichia coliby antibiotic use in primary care: an ecological analysis

“…Patterns of co-resistance and co-selection likely differ between various parts of the world as there is substantial variation in selection pressure by antibiotics and infection prevention and control between countries [27,28]. However, we would even caution against direct comparison of results from another recent study from a region in England [29], as that study did not take into account prescribing of other antibiotics or the potential differences in the propensity to send in samples from patients.…”

Bathing without water, and other stories of everyday hygiene practices and risk perception in urban low-income areas: the case of Lilongwe, Malawi

“…As a consequence, today very few data are available on the status of hygiene and the effectiveness of hygiene interventions. (16) These omissions are partly reproduced by the Sustainable Development Goals, which define hygiene as a sub-component of sanitation (i.e. the percentage of the population not practising open defecation and the percentage of the population with access to basic and private sanitation facilities), or quite narrowly in relation to handwashing infrastructure (i.e.…”