To develop updated estimates in response to new exposure and exposure-response data of the burden of diarrhoea, respiratory infections, malnutrition, schistosomiasis, malaria, soil-transmitted helminth infections and trachoma from exposure to inadequate drinking-water, sanitation and hygiene behaviours (WASH) with a focus on low- and middle-income countries. For each of the analysed diseases, exposure levels with both sufficient global exposure data for 2016 and a matching exposure-response relationship were combined into population-attributable fractions. Attributable deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were estimated for each disease and, for most of the diseases, by country, age and sex group separately for inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene behaviours and for the cluster of risk factors. Uncertainty estimates were computed on the basis of uncertainty surrounding exposure estimates and relative risks. An estimated 829,000 WASH-attributable deaths and 49.8 million DALYs occurred from diarrhoeal diseases in 2016, equivalent to 60% of all diarrhoeal deaths. In children under 5 years, 297,000 WASH-attributable diarrhoea deaths occurred, representing 5.3% of all deaths in this age group. If the global disease burden from different diseases and several counterfactual exposure distributions was combined it would amount to 1.6 million deaths, representing 2.8% of all deaths, and 104.6 million DALYs in 2016. Despite recent declines in attributable mortality, inadequate WASH remains an important determinant of global disease burden, especially among young children. These estimates contribute to global monitoring such as for the Sustainable Development Goal indicator on mortality from inadequate WASH.

A third of the 2·5 billion people worldwide without access to improved sanitation live in India, as do two-thirds of the 1·1 billion practising open defecation and a quarter of the 1·5 million who die annually from diarrhoeal diseases. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a rural sanitation intervention, within the context of the Government of India's Total Sanitation Campaign, to prevent diarrhoea, soil-transmitted helminth infection, and child malnutrition. We did a cluster-randomised controlled trial between May 20, 2010, and Dec 22, 2013, in 100 rural villages in Odisha, India. Households within villages were eligible if they had a child younger than 4 years or a pregnant woman. Villages were randomly assigned (1:1), with a computer-generated sequence, to undergo latrine promotion and construction or to receive no intervention (control). Randomisation was stratified by administrative block to ensure an equal number of intervention and control villages in each block. Masking of participants was not possible because of the nature of the intervention. However, households were not told explicitly that the purpose of enrolment was to study the effect of a trial intervention, and the surveillance team was different from the intervention team. The primary endpoint was 7-day prevalence of reported diarrhoea in children younger than 5 years. We did intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01214785. We randomly assigned 50 villages to the intervention group and 50 villages to the control group. There were 4586 households (24,969 individuals) in intervention villages and 4894 households (25,982 individuals) in control villages. The intervention increased mean village-level latrine coverage from 9% of households to 63%, compared with an increase from 8% to 12% in control villages. Health surveillance data were obtained from 1437 households with children younger than 5 years in the intervention group (1919 children younger than 5 years), and from 1465 households (1916 children younger than 5 years) in the control group. 7-day prevalence of reported diarrhoea in children younger than 5 years was 8·8% in the intervention group and 9·1% in the control group (period prevalence ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·83-1·12). 162 participants died in the intervention group (11 children younger than 5 years) and 151 died in the control group (13 children younger than 5 years). Increased latrine coverage is generally believed to be effective for reducing exposure to faecal pathogens and preventing disease; however, our results show that this outcome cannot be assumed. As efforts to improve sanitation are being undertaken worldwide, approaches should not only meet international coverage targets, but should also be implemented in a way that achieves uptake, reduces exposure, and delivers genuine health gains. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), and Department for International Development-backed SHARE Research Consortium at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

Sanitation aims to sequester human feces and prevent exposure to fecal pathogens. More than 2.4 billion people worldwide lack access to improved sanitation facilities and almost one billion practice open defecation. We undertook systematic reviews and meta-analyses to compile the most recent evidence on the impact of sanitation on diarrhea, soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infections, trachoma, schistosomiasis, and nutritional status assessed using anthropometry. We updated previously published reviews by following their search strategy and eligibility criteria. We searched from the previous review's end date to December 31, 2015. We conducted meta-analyses to estimate pooled measures of effect using random-effects models and conducted subgroup analyses to assess impact of different levels of sanitation services and to explore sources of heterogeneity. We assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence from intervention studies using the Liverpool Quality Appraisal Tool (LQAT) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, respectively. A total of 171 studies met the review's inclusion criteria, including 64 studies not included in the previous reviews. Overall, the evidence suggests that sanitation is protective against diarrhea, active trachoma, some STH infections, schistosomiasis, and height-for-age, with no protective effect for other anthropometric outcomes. The evidence was generally of poor quality, heterogeneity was high, and GRADE scores ranged from very low to high. This review confirms positive impacts of sanitation on aspects of health. Evidence gaps remain and point to the need for research that rigorously describes sanitation implementation and type of sanitation interventions.

Three large new trials of unprecedented scale and cost, which included novel factorial designs, have found no effect of basic water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions on childhood stunting, and only mixed effects on childhood diarrhea. Arriving at the inception of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, and the bold new target of safely managed water, sanitation and hygiene for all by 2030, these results warrant the attention of researchers, policy-makers and practitioners. Here we report the conclusions of an expert meeting convened by the World Health Organization and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to discuss these findings, and present five key consensus messages as a basis for wider discussion and debate in the WASH and nutrition sectors. We judge these trials to have high internal validity, constituting good evidence that these specific interventions had no effect on childhood linear growth, and mixed effects on childhood diarrhea. These results suggest that, in settings such as these, more comprehensive or ambitious WASH interventions may be needed to achieve a major impact on child health. These results are important because such basic interventions are often deployed in low-income rural settings with the expectation of improving child health, although this is rarely the sole justification. Our view is that these three new trials do not show that WASH in general cannot influence child linear growth, but they do demonstrate that these specific interventions had no influence in settings where stunting remains an important public health challenge. We support a call for transformative WASH, in so much as it encapsulates the guiding principle that – in any context – a comprehensive package of WASH interventions is needed that is tailored to address the local exposure landscape and enteric disease burden.

An estimated 2.4 billion people still lack access to improved sanitation and 946 million still practice open defecation. The World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned this review to assess the impact of sanitation on coverage and use, as part of its effort to develop a set of guidelines on sanitation and health. We systematically reviewed the literature and used meta-analysis to quantitatively characterize how different sanitation interventions impact latrine coverage and use. We also assessed both qualitative and quantitative studies to understand how different structural and design characteristics of sanitation are associated with individual latrine use. A total of 64 studies met our eligibility criteria. Of 27 intervention studies that reported on household latrine coverage and provided a point estimate with confidence interval, the average increase in coverage was 14% (95% CI: 10%, 19%). The intervention types with the largest absolute increases in coverage included the Indian government's "Total Sanitation Campaign" (27%; 95% CI: 14%, 39%), latrine subsidy/provision interventions (16%; 95% CI: 8%, 24%), latrine subsidy/provision interventions that also incorporated education components (17%; 95% CI: -5%, 38%), sewerage interventions (14%; 95% CI: 1%, 28%), sanitation education interventions (14%; 95% CI: 3%, 26%), and community-led total sanitation interventions (12%; 95% CI: -2%, 27%). Of 10 intervention studies that reported on household latrine use, the average increase was 13% (95% CI: 4%, 21%). The sanitation interventions and contexts in which they were implemented varied, leading to high heterogeneity across studies. We found 24 studies that examined the association between structural and design characteristics of sanitation facilities and facility use. These studies reported that better maintenance, accessibility, privacy, facility type, cleanliness, newer latrines, and better hygiene access were all frequently associated with higher use, whereas poorer sanitation conditions were associated with lower use. Our results indicate that most sanitation interventions only had a modest impact on increasing latrine coverage and use. A further understanding of how different sanitation characteristics and sanitation interventions impact coverage and use is essential in order to more effectively attain sanitation access for all, eliminate open defecation, and ultimately improve health.

Municipal solid waste (MSW) can pose a threat to public health if it is not safely managed. Despite prior research, uncertainties remain and refurbished evidence is needed along with new approaches. We conducted a systematic review of recently published literature to update and expand the epidemiological evidence on the association between MSW management practices and resident populations’ health risks. Studies published from January 2005 to January 2020 were searched and reviewed following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible MSW treatment or disposal sites were defined as landfills, dumpsites, incinerators, waste open burning, transfer stations, recycling sites, composting plants, and anaerobic digesters. Occupational risks were not assessed. Health effects investigated included mortality, adverse birth and neonatal outcomes, cancer, respiratory conditions, gastroenteritis, vector-borne diseases, mental health conditions, and cardiovascular diseases. Studies reporting on human biomonitoring for exposure were eligible as well. Twenty-nine studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria of our protocol, assessing health effects only associated with proximity to landfills, incinerators, and dumpsites/open burning sites. There was some evidence of an increased risk of adverse birth and neonatal outcomes for residents near each type of MSW site. There was also some evidence of an increased risk of mortality, respiratory diseases, and negative mental health effects associated with residing near landfills. Additionally, there was some evidence of increased risk of mortality associated with residing near incinerators. However, in many cases, the evidence was inadequate to establish a strong relationship between a specific exposure and outcomes, and the studies rarely assessed new generation technologies. Evidence gaps remain, and recommendations for future research are discussed.