43
views
1
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Hand washing promotion for preventing diarrhoea

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Diarrhoea accounts for 1.8 million deaths in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One of the identified strategies to prevent diarrhoea is hand washing.

          Objectives

          To assess the effects of hand washing promotion interventions on diarrhoeal episodes in children and adults.

          Search methods

          We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (27 May 2015); CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 5); MEDLINE (1966 to 27 May 2015); EMBASE (1974 to 27 May 2015); LILACS (1982 to 27 May 2015); PsycINFO (1967 to 27 May 2015); Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index (1981 to 27 May 2015); ERIC (1966 to 27 May 2015); SPECTR (2000 to 27 May 2015); Bibliomap (1990 to 27 May 2015); RoRe, The Grey Literature (2002 to 27 May 2015); World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), and reference lists of articles up to 27 May 2015. We also contacted researchers and organizations in the field.

          Selection criteria

          Individually randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared the effects of hand washing interventions on diarrhoea episodes in children and adults with no intervention.

          Data collection and analysis

          Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We stratified the analyses for child day-care centres or schools, community, and hospital-based settings. Where appropriate, incidence rate ratios (IRR) were pooled using the generic inverse variance method and random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.

          Main results

          We included 22 RCTs: 12 trials from child day-care centres or schools in mainly high-income countries (54,006 participants), nine community-based trials in LMICs (15,303 participants), and one hospital-based trial among people with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) (148 participants).

          Hand washing promotion (education activities, sometimes with provision of soap) at child day-care facilities or schools prevents around one-third of diarrhoea episodes in high income countries (rate ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; nine trials, 4664 participants, high quality evidence), and may prevent a similar proportion in LMICs but only two trials from urban Egypt and Kenya have evaluated this (rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; two trials, 45,380 participants, low quality evidence). Only three trials reported measures of behaviour change and the methods of data collection were susceptible to bias. In one trial from the USA hand washing behaviour was reported to improve; and in the trial from Kenya that provided free soap, hand washing did not increase, but soap use did (data not pooled; three trials, 1845 participants, low quality evidence).

          Hand washing promotion among communities in LMICs probably prevents around one-quarter of diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.83; eight trials, 14,726 participants, moderate quality evidence). However, six of these eight trials were from Asian settings, with only single trials from South America and sub-Saharan Africa. In six trials, soap was provided free alongside hand washing education, and the overall average effect size was larger than in the two trials which did not provide soap (soap provided: rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78; six trials, 11,422 participants; education only: rate ratio: 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; two trials, 3304 participants). There was increased hand washing at major prompts (before eating/cooking, after visiting the toilet or cleaning the baby's bottom), and increased compliance to hand hygiene procedure (behavioural outcome) in the intervention groups than the control in community trials (data not pooled: three trials, 3490 participants, high quality evidence).

          Hand washing promotion for the one trial conducted in a hospital among high-risk population showed significant reduction in mean episodes of diarrhoea (1.68 fewer) in the intervention group (Mean difference 1.68, 95% CI 1.93 to 1.43; one trial, 148 participants, moderate quality evidence). There was increase in hand washing frequency, seven times per day in the intervention group versus three times in the control in this hospital trial (one trial, 148 participants, moderate quality evidence).

          We found no trials evaluating or reporting the effects of hand washing promotions on diarrhoea-related deaths, all-cause-under five mortality, or costs.

          Authors' conclusions

          Hand washing promotion probably reduces diarrhoea episodes in both child day-care centres in high-income countries and among communities living in LMICs by about 30%. However, less is known about how to help people maintain hand washing habits in the longer term.

          PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY
          Hand washing promotion for preventing diarrhoea

          Review question

          This Cochrane Review summarises trials evaluating the effects of promoting hand washing on the incidence of diarrhoea among children and adults in day-care centres, schools, communities, or hospitals. After searching for relevant trials up to 27 May 2015, we included 22 randomized controlled trials conducted in both high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). These trials enrolled 69,309 children and 148 adults.

          How does hand washing prevent diarrhoea and how might hand washing be promoted

          Diarrhoea causes many deaths in children below five years of age, mostly in LMICs. The organisms causing diarrhoea are transmitted from person to person through food and water contaminated with faeces, or through person-to-person contact. Hand washing after defecation, or after cleaning a baby's bottom, and before preparing and eating food, can therefore reduce the risk of diarrhoea. Hand washing can be promoted through group or individual training on hygiene education, germ-health awareness, use of posters, leaflets, comic books, songs, and drama.

          What this review says

          Hand washing promotion at child day-care facilities or schools in HICs probably prevents around 30% of diarrhoea episodes ( high quality evidence), and may prevent a similar proportion in schools in LMICs ( low quality evidence). Among communities in LMICs hand washing promotion prevents around 28% of diarrhoea episodes ( moderate quality evidence). In the only hospital-based trial included in this review, hand washing promotion also had important reduction in the mean episodes of diarrhoea ( moderate quality evidence). This is based on only a single trial with few participants and thus there is need for more trials to confirm this. Effects of hand washing promotion on related hand hygiene behaviour changes improved more in the intervention groups than in the control in all the settings ( low to high quality evidence). None of the included trials assessed the effect of handwashing promotion on diarrhoeal-related deaths, all-cause under-five mortality, or the cost-effectiveness of hand washing promotions.

          Conclusion

          Hand washing promotion in HICs and LMICs settings may reduce incidence of diarrhoea by about 30%. However, less is known about how to help people maintain hand washing habits in the longer term.

          Related collections

          Most cited references122

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effect of hand hygiene on infectious disease risk in the community setting: a meta-analysis.

          To quantify the effect of hand-hygiene interventions on rates of gastrointestinal and respiratory illnesses and to identify interventions that provide the greatest efficacy, we searched 4 electronic databases for hand-hygiene trials published from January 1960 through May 2007 and conducted meta-analyses to generate pooled rate ratios across interventions (N=30 studies). Improvements in hand hygiene resulted in reductions in gastrointestinal illness of 31% (95% confidence intervals [CI]=19%, 42%) and reductions in respiratory illness of 21% (95% CI=5%, 34%). The most beneficial intervention was hand-hygiene education with use of nonantibacterial soap. Use of antibacterial soap showed little added benefit compared with use of nonantibacterial soap. Hand hygiene is clearly effective against gastrointestinal and, to a lesser extent, respiratory infections. Studies examining hygiene practices during respiratory illness and interventions targeting aerosol transmission are needed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of handwashing on child health: a randomised controlled trial.

            More than 3.5 million children aged less than 5 years die from diarrhoea and acute lower respiratory-tract infection every year. We undertook a randomised controlled trial to assess the effect of handwashing promotion with soap on the incidence of acute respiratory infection, impetigo, and diarrhoea. In adjoining squatter settlements in Karachi, Pakistan, we randomly assigned 25 neighbourhoods to handwashing promotion; 11 neighbourhoods (306 households) were randomised as controls. In neighbourhoods with handwashing promotion, 300 households each were assigned to antibacterial soap containing 1.2% triclocarban and to plain soap. Fieldworkers visited households weekly for 1 year to encourage handwashing by residents in soap households and to record symptoms in all households. Primary study outcomes were diarrhoea, impetigo, and acute respiratory-tract infections (ie, the number of new episodes of illness per person-weeks at risk). Pneumonia was defined according to the WHO clinical case definition. Analysis was by intention to treat. Children younger than 5 years in households that received plain soap and handwashing promotion had a 50% lower incidence of pneumonia than controls (95% CI (-65% to -34%). Also compared with controls, children younger than 15 years in households with plain soap had a 53% lower incidence of diarrhoea (-65% to -41%) and a 34% lower incidence of impetigo (-52% to -16%). Incidence of disease did not differ significantly between households given plain soap compared with those given antibacterial soap. Handwashing with soap prevents the two clinical syndromes that cause the largest number of childhood deaths globally-namely, diarrhoea and acute lower respiratory infections. Handwashing with daily bathing also prevents impetigo.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Health-education package to prevent worm infections in Chinese schoolchildren.

              Soil-transmitted helminths are among the most prevalent sources of human infections globally. We determined the effect of an educational package at rural schools in Linxiang City District, Hunan province, China, where these worms are prevalent. The intervention aimed to increase knowledge about soil-transmitted helminths, induce behavioral change, and reduce the rate of infection. We conducted a single-blind, unmatched, cluster-randomized intervention trial involving 1718 children, 9 to 10 years of age, in 38 schools over the course of 1 school year. Schools were randomly assigned to the health-education package, which included a cartoon video, or to a control package, which involved only the display of a health-education poster. Infection rates, knowledge about soil-transmitted helminths (as assessed with the use of a questionnaire), and hand-washing behavior were assessed before and after the intervention. Albendazole was administered in all the participants at baseline and in all the children who were found to be positive for infection with soil-transmitted helminths at the follow-up assessment at the end of the school year. At the follow-up assessment, the mean score for the knowledge of helminths, calculated as a percentage of a total of 43 points on a questionnaire, was 90% higher in the intervention group than in the control group (63.3 vs. 33.4, P<0.001), the percentage of children who washed their hands after using the toilet was nearly twice as high in the intervention group (98.9%, vs. 54.2% in the control group; P<0.001), and the incidence of infection with soil-transmitted helminths was 50% lower in the intervention group than in the control group (4.1% vs. 8.4%, P<0.001). No adverse events were observed immediately (within 15 minutes) after albendazole treatment. The health-education package increased students' knowledge about soil-transmitted helminths and led to a change in behavior and a reduced incidence of infection within 1 school year. (Funded by UBS Optimus Foundation, Zurich, Switzerland; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12610000048088.).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cochrane Database Syst Rev
                Cochrane Database Syst Rev
                cd
                The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (Chichester, UK )
                1469-493X
                03 September 2015
                : 9
                : 1-95
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Public Health, College of Medical Sciences, University of Calabar Calabar, Nigeria
                [2 ]Division of Health Promotion Sciences, University of Arizona, Mel & Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health Tucson, USA
                [3 ]Nigerian Branch of the South African Cochrane Centre, Institute of Tropical Diseases Research and Prevention Calabar, Nigeria
                [4 ]Department of Paediatrics, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital Calabar, Nigeria
                [5 ]Population Health Sciences Institute, St George's, University of London London, UK
                Author notes
                Contact address: Regina I Ejemot-Nwadiaro, Department of Public Health, College of Medical Sciences, University of Calabar, Calabar, Cross River State, PMB 1115, Nigeria. reginaejemot@ 123456yahoo.com . r.ejemot_nwadiaro@ 123456unical.edu.ng .

                Editorial group: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group.

                Publication status and date: New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions), published in Issue 9, 2015.

                Review content assessed as up-to-date: 27 May 2015.

                Article
                10.1002/14651858.CD004265.pub3
                4563982
                26346329
                4c730c1a-de02-4625-a888-6935c3054e76
                Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                History
                Categories
                Review

                Comments

                Comment on this article