Cargando…

Assessing the Health Impact of Water Quality Interventions in Low-Income Settings: Concerns Associated with Blinded Trials and the Need for Objective Outcomes

BACKGROUND: A dramatic disparity between the results of blinded versus open trial designs has raised questions about the effectiveness of water quality interventions and other environmental interventions to prevent diarrhea, a leading killer of young children in low-income countries. OBJECTIVES: We...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Clasen, Thomas, Boisson, Sophie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4937874/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26685286
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510532
_version_ 1782441784886951936
author Clasen, Thomas
Boisson, Sophie
author_facet Clasen, Thomas
Boisson, Sophie
author_sort Clasen, Thomas
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A dramatic disparity between the results of blinded versus open trial designs has raised questions about the effectiveness of water quality interventions and other environmental interventions to prevent diarrhea, a leading killer of young children in low-income countries. OBJECTIVES: We summarize the results of blinded versus open trials of water quality interventions, describe evidence from a recent placebo-controlled trial in India suggesting that control households were put at risk from their participation, and suggest alternatives to blinded trials that could resolve continued uncertainty about the magnitude of the protective effect of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions without presenting ethical questions. DISCUSSION: Concerns about reporting bias in open trial designs continue to cause uncertainty about the effectiveness of WASH interventions. However, evidence suggests that despite instructions to the contrary, placebos may encourage control group participants in blinded trials to cease practicing traditional water treatment practices in the mistaken belief that they are protected by an active intervention. Although objective outcomes such as pathogen incrimination, seroconversion, biomarkers, and anthropometry can be helpful, these are often costly, nonspecific, and unsuitable for evaluating programmatic interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Unless researchers can be assured that a placebo will not cause those in a control group to change their behavior in a manner that increases their risk, it is incumbent on researchers to use alternatives. Validated objective measures are needed for assessing the health impact of WASH interventions that are reliable, affordable, and suitable both for research and program evaluation. CITATION: Clasen T, Boisson S. 2016. Assessing the health impact of water quality interventions in low-income settings: concerns associated with blinded trials and the need for objective outcomes. Environ Health Perspect 124:886–889; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510532
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4937874
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49378742016-07-13 Assessing the Health Impact of Water Quality Interventions in Low-Income Settings: Concerns Associated with Blinded Trials and the Need for Objective Outcomes Clasen, Thomas Boisson, Sophie Environ Health Perspect Commentary BACKGROUND: A dramatic disparity between the results of blinded versus open trial designs has raised questions about the effectiveness of water quality interventions and other environmental interventions to prevent diarrhea, a leading killer of young children in low-income countries. OBJECTIVES: We summarize the results of blinded versus open trials of water quality interventions, describe evidence from a recent placebo-controlled trial in India suggesting that control households were put at risk from their participation, and suggest alternatives to blinded trials that could resolve continued uncertainty about the magnitude of the protective effect of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions without presenting ethical questions. DISCUSSION: Concerns about reporting bias in open trial designs continue to cause uncertainty about the effectiveness of WASH interventions. However, evidence suggests that despite instructions to the contrary, placebos may encourage control group participants in blinded trials to cease practicing traditional water treatment practices in the mistaken belief that they are protected by an active intervention. Although objective outcomes such as pathogen incrimination, seroconversion, biomarkers, and anthropometry can be helpful, these are often costly, nonspecific, and unsuitable for evaluating programmatic interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Unless researchers can be assured that a placebo will not cause those in a control group to change their behavior in a manner that increases their risk, it is incumbent on researchers to use alternatives. Validated objective measures are needed for assessing the health impact of WASH interventions that are reliable, affordable, and suitable both for research and program evaluation. CITATION: Clasen T, Boisson S. 2016. Assessing the health impact of water quality interventions in low-income settings: concerns associated with blinded trials and the need for objective outcomes. Environ Health Perspect 124:886–889; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510532 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 2015-12-18 2016-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4937874/ /pubmed/26685286 http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510532 Text en http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ Publication of EHP lies in the public domain and is therefore without copyright. All text from EHP may be reprinted freely. Use of materials published in EHP should be acknowledged (for example, “Reproduced with permission from Environmental Health Perspectives”); pertinent reference information should be provided for the article from which the material was reproduced. Articles from EHP, especially the News section, may contain photographs or illustrations copyrighted by other commercial organizations or individuals that may not be used without obtaining prior approval from the holder of the copyright.
spellingShingle Commentary
Clasen, Thomas
Boisson, Sophie
Assessing the Health Impact of Water Quality Interventions in Low-Income Settings: Concerns Associated with Blinded Trials and the Need for Objective Outcomes
title Assessing the Health Impact of Water Quality Interventions in Low-Income Settings: Concerns Associated with Blinded Trials and the Need for Objective Outcomes
title_full Assessing the Health Impact of Water Quality Interventions in Low-Income Settings: Concerns Associated with Blinded Trials and the Need for Objective Outcomes
title_fullStr Assessing the Health Impact of Water Quality Interventions in Low-Income Settings: Concerns Associated with Blinded Trials and the Need for Objective Outcomes
title_full_unstemmed Assessing the Health Impact of Water Quality Interventions in Low-Income Settings: Concerns Associated with Blinded Trials and the Need for Objective Outcomes
title_short Assessing the Health Impact of Water Quality Interventions in Low-Income Settings: Concerns Associated with Blinded Trials and the Need for Objective Outcomes
title_sort assessing the health impact of water quality interventions in low-income settings: concerns associated with blinded trials and the need for objective outcomes
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4937874/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26685286
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510532
work_keys_str_mv AT clasenthomas assessingthehealthimpactofwaterqualityinterventionsinlowincomesettingsconcernsassociatedwithblindedtrialsandtheneedforobjectiveoutcomes
AT boissonsophie assessingthehealthimpactofwaterqualityinterventionsinlowincomesettingsconcernsassociatedwithblindedtrialsandtheneedforobjectiveoutcomes