↓ Skip to main content

Achieving optimal technology and behavioral uptake of single and combined interventions of water, sanitation hygiene and nutrition, in an efficacy trial (WASH benefits) in rural Bangladesh

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
258 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Achieving optimal technology and behavioral uptake of single and combined interventions of water, sanitation hygiene and nutrition, in an efficacy trial (WASH benefits) in rural Bangladesh
Published in
Trials, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2710-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarker Masud Parvez, Rashidul Azad, Mahbubur Rahman, Leanne Unicomb, Pavani K. Ram, Abu Mohd Naser, Christine P. Stewart, Kaniz Jannat, Musarrat Jabeen Rahman, Elli Leontsini, Peter J. Winch, Stephen P. Luby

Abstract

Uptake matters for evaluating the health impact of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions. Many large-scale WASH interventions have been plagued by low uptake. For the WASH Benefits Bangladesh efficacy trial, high uptake was a prerequisite. We assessed the degree of technology and behavioral uptake among participants in the trial, as part of a three-paper series on WASH Benefits Intervention Delivery and Performance. This study is a cluster randomized trial comprised of geographically matched clusters among four districts in rural Bangladesh. We randomly allocated 720 clusters of 5551 pregnant women to individual or combined water, sanitation, handwashing, and nutrition interventions, or a control group. Behavioral objectives included; drinking chlorine-treated, safely stored water; use of a hygienic latrine and safe feces disposal at the compound level; handwashing with soap at key times; and age-appropriate nutrition behaviors (pregnancy to 24 months) including a lipid-based nutrition supplement (LNS). Enabling technologies and behavior change were promoted by trained local community health workers through periodic household visits. To monitor technology and behavioral uptake, we conducted surveys and spot checks in 30-35 households per intervention arm per month, over a 20-month period, and structured observations in 324 intervention and 108 control households, approximately 15 months after interventions commenced. In the sanitation arms, observed adult use of a hygienic latrine was high (94-97% of events) while child sanitation practices were moderate (37-54%). In the handwashing arms, handwashing with soap was more common after toilet use (67-74%) than nonintervention arms (18-40%), and after cleaning a child's anus (61-72%), but was still low before food handling. In the water intervention arms, more than 65% of mothers and index children were observed drinking chlorine-treated water from a safe container. Reported LNS feeding was > 80% in nutrition arms. There was little difference in uptake between single and combined intervention arms. Rigorous implementation of interventions deployed at large scale in the context of an efficacy trial achieved high levels of technology and behavioral uptake in individual and combined WASH and nutrition intervention households. Further work should assess how to achieve similar uptake levels under programmatic conditions. WASH Benefits Bangladesh: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT01590095 . Registered on April 30, 2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 258 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 258 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 13%
Student > Bachelor 21 8%
Researcher 19 7%
Lecturer 12 5%
Other 42 16%
Unknown 88 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 35 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 9%
Social Sciences 21 8%
Engineering 16 6%
Environmental Science 15 6%
Other 51 20%
Unknown 96 37%