Cargando…

Acceptability measures of water, sanitation and hygiene interventions in low- and middle-income countries, a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Inadequate access to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) is an environmental risk factor for poor health outcomes globally, particularly for children in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Despite technological advancements, many interventions aimed at improving WASH access return...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hosking, Rose, O’Connor, Suji Y, Wangdi, Kinley, Kurscheid, Johanna, Lal, Aparna
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9499221/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36094954
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0010702
_version_ 1784794943372394496
author Hosking, Rose
O’Connor, Suji Y
Wangdi, Kinley
Kurscheid, Johanna
Lal, Aparna
author_facet Hosking, Rose
O’Connor, Suji Y
Wangdi, Kinley
Kurscheid, Johanna
Lal, Aparna
author_sort Hosking, Rose
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Inadequate access to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) is an environmental risk factor for poor health outcomes globally, particularly for children in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Despite technological advancements, many interventions aimed at improving WASH access return less than optimal results on long term impact, efficacy and sustainability. Research focus in the ‘WASH sector’ has recently expanded from investigating ‘which interventions work’ to ‘how they are best implemented’. The ‘acceptability’ of an intervention is a key component of implementation that can influence initial uptake and sustained use. Acceptability assessments are increasingly common for health interventions in clinical settings. A broad scale assessment of how acceptability has been measured in the WASH sector, however, has not yet been conducted. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic literature review of intervention studies published between 1990 and 2021 that evaluated the acceptability of WASH interventions in LMIC settings. Using an implementation science approach, focused outcomes included how acceptability was measured and defined, and the timing of acceptability assessment. We conducted quality assessment for all included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomised studies, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomised studies. Of the 1238 records; 36 studies were included for the analysis, 22 of which were non-randomized interventions and 16 randomized or cluster-randomized trials. We found that among the 36 studies, four explicitly defined their acceptability measure, and six used a behavioural framework to inform their acceptability study design. There were few acceptability evaluations in schools and healthcare facilities. While all studies reported measuring WASH acceptability, the measures were often not comparable or described. CONCLUSIONS: As focus in WASH research shifts towards implementation, a consistent approach to including, defining, and measuring acceptability is needed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9499221
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94992212022-09-23 Acceptability measures of water, sanitation and hygiene interventions in low- and middle-income countries, a systematic review Hosking, Rose O’Connor, Suji Y Wangdi, Kinley Kurscheid, Johanna Lal, Aparna PLoS Negl Trop Dis Research Article BACKGROUND: Inadequate access to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) is an environmental risk factor for poor health outcomes globally, particularly for children in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Despite technological advancements, many interventions aimed at improving WASH access return less than optimal results on long term impact, efficacy and sustainability. Research focus in the ‘WASH sector’ has recently expanded from investigating ‘which interventions work’ to ‘how they are best implemented’. The ‘acceptability’ of an intervention is a key component of implementation that can influence initial uptake and sustained use. Acceptability assessments are increasingly common for health interventions in clinical settings. A broad scale assessment of how acceptability has been measured in the WASH sector, however, has not yet been conducted. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic literature review of intervention studies published between 1990 and 2021 that evaluated the acceptability of WASH interventions in LMIC settings. Using an implementation science approach, focused outcomes included how acceptability was measured and defined, and the timing of acceptability assessment. We conducted quality assessment for all included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomised studies, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomised studies. Of the 1238 records; 36 studies were included for the analysis, 22 of which were non-randomized interventions and 16 randomized or cluster-randomized trials. We found that among the 36 studies, four explicitly defined their acceptability measure, and six used a behavioural framework to inform their acceptability study design. There were few acceptability evaluations in schools and healthcare facilities. While all studies reported measuring WASH acceptability, the measures were often not comparable or described. CONCLUSIONS: As focus in WASH research shifts towards implementation, a consistent approach to including, defining, and measuring acceptability is needed. Public Library of Science 2022-09-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9499221/ /pubmed/36094954 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0010702 Text en © 2022 Hosking et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hosking, Rose
O’Connor, Suji Y
Wangdi, Kinley
Kurscheid, Johanna
Lal, Aparna
Acceptability measures of water, sanitation and hygiene interventions in low- and middle-income countries, a systematic review
title Acceptability measures of water, sanitation and hygiene interventions in low- and middle-income countries, a systematic review
title_full Acceptability measures of water, sanitation and hygiene interventions in low- and middle-income countries, a systematic review
title_fullStr Acceptability measures of water, sanitation and hygiene interventions in low- and middle-income countries, a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Acceptability measures of water, sanitation and hygiene interventions in low- and middle-income countries, a systematic review
title_short Acceptability measures of water, sanitation and hygiene interventions in low- and middle-income countries, a systematic review
title_sort acceptability measures of water, sanitation and hygiene interventions in low- and middle-income countries, a systematic review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9499221/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36094954
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0010702
work_keys_str_mv AT hoskingrose acceptabilitymeasuresofwatersanitationandhygieneinterventionsinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreview
AT oconnorsujiy acceptabilitymeasuresofwatersanitationandhygieneinterventionsinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreview
AT wangdikinley acceptabilitymeasuresofwatersanitationandhygieneinterventionsinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreview
AT kurscheidjohanna acceptabilitymeasuresofwatersanitationandhygieneinterventionsinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreview
AT lalaparna acceptabilitymeasuresofwatersanitationandhygieneinterventionsinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreview