Cargando…

Community-Led Total Sanitation: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review of Evidence and Its Quality

BACKGROUND: Community-led total sanitation (CLTS) is a widely applied rural behavior change approach for ending open defecation. However, evidence of its impact is unclear. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review of journal-published and gray literature to a) assess evidence quality, b) summari...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Venkataramanan, Vidya, Crocker, Jonny, Karon, Andrew, Bartram, Jamie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Environmental Health Perspectives 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6066338/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29398655
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP1965
_version_ 1783342954901929984
author Venkataramanan, Vidya
Crocker, Jonny
Karon, Andrew
Bartram, Jamie
author_facet Venkataramanan, Vidya
Crocker, Jonny
Karon, Andrew
Bartram, Jamie
author_sort Venkataramanan, Vidya
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Community-led total sanitation (CLTS) is a widely applied rural behavior change approach for ending open defecation. However, evidence of its impact is unclear. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review of journal-published and gray literature to a) assess evidence quality, b) summarize CLTS impacts, and c) identify factors affecting implementation and effectiveness. METHODS: Eligible studies were systematically screened and selected for analysis from searches of seven databases and 16 websites. We developed a framework to appraise literature quality. We qualitatively analyzed factors enabling or constraining CLTS, and summarized results from quantitative evaluations. DISCUSSION: We included 200 studies (14 quantitative evaluations, 29 qualitative studies, and 157 case studies). Journal-published literature was generally of higher quality than gray literature. Fourteen quantitative evaluations reported decreases in open defecation, but did not corroborate the widespread claims of open defecation–free (ODF) villages found in case studies. Over one-fourth of the literature overstated conclusions, attributing outcomes and impacts to interventions without an appropriate study design. We identified 43 implementation- and community-related factors reportedly affecting CLTS. This analysis revealed the importance of adaptability, structured posttriggering activities, appropriate community selection, and further research on combining and sequencing CLTS with other interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base on CLTS effectiveness available to practitioners, policy makers, and program managers to inform their actions is weak. Our results highlight the need for more rigorous research on CLTS impacts as well as applied research initiatives that bring researchers and practitioners together to address implementation challenges to improve rural sanitation efforts. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1965
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6066338
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Environmental Health Perspectives
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60663382018-07-31 Community-Led Total Sanitation: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review of Evidence and Its Quality Venkataramanan, Vidya Crocker, Jonny Karon, Andrew Bartram, Jamie Environ Health Perspect Review BACKGROUND: Community-led total sanitation (CLTS) is a widely applied rural behavior change approach for ending open defecation. However, evidence of its impact is unclear. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review of journal-published and gray literature to a) assess evidence quality, b) summarize CLTS impacts, and c) identify factors affecting implementation and effectiveness. METHODS: Eligible studies were systematically screened and selected for analysis from searches of seven databases and 16 websites. We developed a framework to appraise literature quality. We qualitatively analyzed factors enabling or constraining CLTS, and summarized results from quantitative evaluations. DISCUSSION: We included 200 studies (14 quantitative evaluations, 29 qualitative studies, and 157 case studies). Journal-published literature was generally of higher quality than gray literature. Fourteen quantitative evaluations reported decreases in open defecation, but did not corroborate the widespread claims of open defecation–free (ODF) villages found in case studies. Over one-fourth of the literature overstated conclusions, attributing outcomes and impacts to interventions without an appropriate study design. We identified 43 implementation- and community-related factors reportedly affecting CLTS. This analysis revealed the importance of adaptability, structured posttriggering activities, appropriate community selection, and further research on combining and sequencing CLTS with other interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base on CLTS effectiveness available to practitioners, policy makers, and program managers to inform their actions is weak. Our results highlight the need for more rigorous research on CLTS impacts as well as applied research initiatives that bring researchers and practitioners together to address implementation challenges to improve rural sanitation efforts. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1965 Environmental Health Perspectives 2018-02-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6066338/ /pubmed/29398655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP1965 Text en EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted.
spellingShingle Review
Venkataramanan, Vidya
Crocker, Jonny
Karon, Andrew
Bartram, Jamie
Community-Led Total Sanitation: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review of Evidence and Its Quality
title Community-Led Total Sanitation: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review of Evidence and Its Quality
title_full Community-Led Total Sanitation: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review of Evidence and Its Quality
title_fullStr Community-Led Total Sanitation: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review of Evidence and Its Quality
title_full_unstemmed Community-Led Total Sanitation: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review of Evidence and Its Quality
title_short Community-Led Total Sanitation: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review of Evidence and Its Quality
title_sort community-led total sanitation: a mixed-methods systematic review of evidence and its quality
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6066338/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29398655
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP1965
work_keys_str_mv AT venkataramananvidya communityledtotalsanitationamixedmethodssystematicreviewofevidenceanditsquality
AT crockerjonny communityledtotalsanitationamixedmethodssystematicreviewofevidenceanditsquality
AT karonandrew communityledtotalsanitationamixedmethodssystematicreviewofevidenceanditsquality
AT bartramjamie communityledtotalsanitationamixedmethodssystematicreviewofevidenceanditsquality