Background Hand hygiene is an important measure to prevent disease transmission. Objective To summarise current international guideline recommendations for hand hygiene in community settings and to assess to what extent they are consistent and evidence based. Eligibility criteria We included international guidelines with one or more recommendations on hand hygiene in community settings—categorised as domestic, public or institutional—published by international organisations, in English or French, between 1 January 1990 and 15 November 2021. Data sources To identify relevant guidelines, we searched the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing Database, Google, websites of international organisations, and contacted expert organisations and individuals. Charting methods Recommendations were mapped to four areas related to hand hygiene: (1) effective hand hygiene; (2) minimum requirements; (3) behaviour change and (4) government measures. Recommendations were assessed for consistency, concordance and whether supported by evidence. Results We identified 51 guidelines containing 923 recommendations published between 1999 and 2021 by multilateral agencies and international non-governmental organisations. Handwashing with soap is consistently recommended as the preferred method for hand hygiene across all community settings. Most guidelines specifically recommend handwashing with plain soap and running water for at least 20 s; single-use paper towels for hand drying; and alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) as a complement or alternative to handwashing. There are inconsistent and discordant recommendations for water quality for handwashing, affordable and effective alternatives to soap and ABHR, and the design of handwashing stations. There are gaps in recommendations on soap and water quantity, behaviour change approaches and government measures required for effective hand hygiene. Less than 10% of recommendations are supported by any cited evidence. Conclusion While current international guidelines consistently recommend handwashing with soap across community settings, there remain gaps in recommendations where clear evidence-based guidance might support more effective policy and investment.

School-age children in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) face health and educational challenges due to inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in schools (WinS). Evidence for the impact of WinS interventions is limited and inconsistent, and previous systematic reviews have faced challenges in synthesising data due to varied interventions, study designs and outcome measures, although most do not examine this variability in more detail. This scoping review identified 83 experimental studies from 33 LMICs measuring a primary or secondary health or educational outcome among pupils, published up to November 2023, using a systematic search of seven databases and searching of reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included articles. These included 65 studies (78%) not included in previous WinS reviews and encompassed 313 intervention effects across 14 outcome domains. Interventions comprised an array of WASH technologies and approaches, often combining infrastructure and behaviour change methods and frequently integrated with other school-based initiatives like deworming. 36 studies (43%) measured only behavioural or knowledge outcomes. Our comprehensive inventory of study outcomes identified 158 unique outcome measures, with 72% measured in exactly one study. Common outcomes included parasitic infections, anthropometric measures and school absence, but approaches to measurement varied widely even for similar outcomes. Only 7% of results were disaggregated by gender, limiting assessment of differential impacts. Our findings underscore the need for standardised outcome measures in WinS research incorporating a complete definition of the assessment and aggregation approach, greater attention to gender-specific impacts, and further exploration of modalities and functions of WinS interventions alongside novel meta-analysis methods to disentangle effects of diverse intervention components.

Unsafe sanitation is an increasing public health concern for rapidly expanding cities in low-income countries. Understanding household demand for improved sanitation infrastructure is critical for planning effective sanitation investments. In this study, we compared the stated and revealed willingness to pay (WTP) for high-quality, pour-flush latrines among households in low-income areas in the city of Nakuru, Kenya. We found that stated WTP for high-quality, pour-flush latrines was much lower than market prices: less than 5% of households were willing to pay the full costs, which we estimated between 87,100–82,900 Kenyan Shillings (KES), or 871–829 USD. In addition, we found large discrepancies between stated and revealed WTP. For example, 90% of households stated that they would be willing to pay a discounted amount of 10,000 KES (100 USD) for a high-quality, pour-flush latrine, but only 10% of households redeemed vouchers at this price point (paid via six installment payments). Households reported that financial constraints (i.e., lack of cash, other spending priorities) were the main barriers to voucher redemption, even at highly discounted prices. Our results emphasize the importance of financial interventions that address the sizable gaps between the costs of sanitation products and customer demand among low-income populations.

Behaviour change interventions have the potential to improve sanitation and hygiene practices in urban settings. However, evidence on which behaviour change interventions have successfully improved sanitation and hygiene practices in urban settings is unclear. We performed electronic searches across five databases and one grey literature database to identify relevant studies published between January 1, 1990 and November 20, 2023 in English. Eligible study designs included randomised and non-randomised controlled trials with a concurrent control. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported a behaviour change intervention for improving sanitation and/or hygiene practices in an urban setting. Individual behaviour change intervention components were mapped to one of nine intervention functions of the capabilities, opportunities, motivations, and behaviour (COM-B) framework. Risk of bias was assessed for each study using an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa scale. After de-duplication, 8249 documents were screened by abstract and title, with 79 documents retrieved for full-text screening. We included 13 studies ranging from low- to high-quality. The behaviour change interventions had mixed effects on sanitation and hygiene practices in urban settings. Specifically, interventions improved latrine quality but not safe child faeces disposal. Interventions often improved handwashing with soap at key times and sometimes increased the presence of soap and water at the handwashing facility, used as a proxy measure for handwashing. There is limited evidence on food hygiene practices. Most behavioural outcomes were measured between 6 and 12 months after intervention implementation, which may undermine the sustainability of behaviour change interventions. Despite overall mixed behavioural effects on sanitation and hygiene practices, behaviour change interventions can improve certain behaviours in urban settings, such as latrine quality improvements and handwashing with soap at the household or compound level. More ambitious behaviour change interventions are needed to reduce disparities in sanitation and hygiene access in urban areas globally.

Background: Community-based behavior change interventions are a common approach to Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH). Yet, published evaluations of how these interventions work in district-wide approaches are rare. Objective: This study reports the baseline characteristics and study design for a trial assessing the effectiveness of a district-level Community-led Total Sanitation (CLTS) intervention compared to the additional integration of local care groups (CG) on sanitation coverage and use and hygiene behaviors in Chiradzulu District, Malawi. Methods: This study is a controlled before-and-after trial with 2 treatment arms and a control group. Clusters are rural villages in 3 traditional authorities (TAs). One arm will receive CLTS and the CG model (CLTS+CG group), one arm CLTS only (CLTS group), and one group will serve as the control. The trial is part of the wider WASH for Everyone (W4E) project, led by World Vision Malawi that aims to expand access to WASH services across the entire district by 2025. Study participants were selected from the 3 TAs. Systematic sampling procedures were used to select 20 households per cluster with a total of 1400 households at both baseline and end line. The primary outcome is sanitation coverage. Secondary outcome measures include sanitation use, safe disposal of child feces, observed handwashing facility, and Sanitation-related Quality of Life Index (SanQoL-5). Results: The baseline observations indicate a balanced distribution of potential demographic confounders in the trial arms with a slight variation on some WASH proxy measures. We noted the low coverage of handwashing facilities with soap and water in all 3 arms: 8% in the CLTS group, 4% in the CLTS+CG group, and 4% in the control group. There was a marginal variation in handwashing practices among the study arms with 3% of individuals handwashing with soap and water in the CLTS group, 5% in the CLTS+CG group, and 2% in the control group. Sanitation coverage also varied among the study arms at baseline as 83% of households had access to unimproved sanitation in the CLTS group, 70% in the CLTS+CG group, and 81% in the control group. Conclusions: Results from this trial will provide evidence on whether the CLTS+CG approach is effective at improving sanitation and hygiene practices in the W4E program area compared to CLTS alone and no intervention, as well as inform implementing partners on future interventions in Chiradzulu District, Malawi. The results are expected to be published in 2025. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05808218; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05808218 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/68280

Soil-transmitted helminths (STHs) are among the most common human infections worldwide and a major cause of morbidity. They are caused by different species of parasitic worms and transmitted by eggs released in faeces or when hookworm larvae penetrate the skin. The main control strategy in endemic regions is periodic treatment with deworming medication. In the last 10 years, there has been a scale-up of prevention and control activities with a focus on community-based interventions (CBIs). This review aims to systematically analyse the impact of CBIs on the prevalence and infection intensity of STHs. A systematic review was published on this topic in 2014, but there have subsequently been several new studies published which are included in this review. Electronic database search of MEDLINE (Ovid), Global Health Online (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Embase (Ovid) and Web of Science was conducted. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened by two independent reviewers according to predefined eligibility criteria. Data were extracted and a meta-analysis of included studies was conducted. A total of 11,954 de-duplicated titles were screened, and 33 studies were included in the review. 14 focussed on community-wide treatment, 11 studies investigated school-based interventions, and 3 studies investigating both. Results suggest that CBIs are effective in reducing the prevalence of Hookworm, Trichuris trichiura and Ascaris lumbricoides. School-based treatment and community-wide treatment, as well as annual and semi-annual deworming, all reduce STH prevalence significantly. Mass drug administration was effective in reducing the infection intensity of Hookworm (Mean difference: -211.36 [95% CI: -519.12, 96.39]), Trichuris trichiura (-736.69 [-1349.97, -123.42]) and Ascaris lumbricoides (-2723.34 [-5014.85, -431.84]). The results suggest that CBIs are effective in reducing the prevalence and intensity of STH infections. While most studies delivered preventive chemotherapy (PC), few studies explored the impact of interventions such as water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) or health education, which may be essential in preventing reinfection after PC.