Household-level sanitation interventions have had limited effects on child health or environmental contamination, potentially due to low community coverage. Higher community-level coverage with safely managed sanitation can reduce opportunities for disease transmission. We estimated associations between community sanitation coverage, environmental fecal contamination, and child health among 360 compounds in the control arm of the WASH Benefits trial in rural Bangladesh (NCT01590095). In each compound, we enumerated E. coli in environmental samples and recorded the 7-day prevalence of caregiver-reported diarrheal disease and acute respiratory infections (ARI) in children under five. We observed indicators of latrine access and quality among all neighboring compounds within 100 m of study compounds. We defined community coverage as the proportion of neighboring compounds with (1) at least one latrine, and (2) exclusively hygienic latrines (improved facility observed to safely contain feces), within both 50 m and 100 m of study compounds. We assessed effect modification by population density and season. Adjusted for confounders, study compounds surrounded by 100% coverage of at least one latrine per compound within 50 m had slightly lower log₁₀E. coli counts in stored water (Δlog = −0.13, 95% CI -0.26, −0.01), child hand rinses (Δlog = −0.13, 95% CI -0.24, −0.02), and caregiver hand rinses (Δlog = −0.16, 95% CI -0.29, −0.03) and marginally lower prevalence of diarrheal disease (prevalence ratio [PR] = 0.82, 95% CI 0.64, 1.04) and ARI (PR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.69, 1.03) compared to compounds surrounded by <100% coverage. Effects were similar but less pronounced at 100 m. At higher population densities, community latrine coverage was associated with larger reductions in E. coli on child and caregiver hands and prevalence of diarrheal disease. Coverage with exclusively hygienic latrines was not associated with any outcome. Higher community sanitation coverage was associated with reduced fecal contamination and improved child health, with stronger effects at highly local scales (50m) and at high population densities. Our findings indicate that the relationship between community sanitation coverage, environmental contamination, and child health varies by definition of coverage, distance, and population density. This work highlights significant uncertainty around how to best measure sanitation coverage and the expected health effects of increasing sanitation coverage using a specific metric. Better understanding of community-level sanitation access is needed to inform policy for implementing sanitation systems that effectively protect community health.

Household latrine access generally is not associated with reduced fecal contamination in the environment, but its long-term effectiveness has not been measured. We conducted an environmental assessment nested within the WASH Benefits Bangladesh randomized controlled trial (NCT01590095). We quantified E. coli and fecal coliforms in samples of stored drinking water, child hands, mother hands, soil, and food among a random sample of households from the sanitation and control arms of the trial. Samples were collected during eight quarterly visits approximately 1–3.5 years after intervention initiation. Overall, there were no substantial differences in environmental fecal contamination between households enrolled in the sanitation and control arms. Statistically significant reductions were found in stored water and child hands after pooling across sampling rounds, but the effects were small and not consistent across rounds. In addition, we assessed potential effect modification of intervention effects by follow-up time, season, wealth, community-level latrine density and coverage, population density, and domestic animal ownership. While the intervention had statistically significant effects within some subgroups, there were no consistent patterns of effect modification. Our findings support a growing consensus that on-site latrines are insufficient to prevent fecal contamination in the rural household environment.

Background: Diarrhea and acute respiratory infection (ARI) are leading causes of death in children. The WASH Benefits Bangladesh trial implemented a multicomponent sanitation intervention that led to a 39% reduction in the prevalence of diarrhea among children and a 25% reduction for ARI, measured 1 to 2 years after intervention implementation. We measured longer-term intervention effects on these outcomes between 1 to 3.5 years after intervention implementation, including periods with differing intensity of behavioral promotion. Methods and findings: WASH Benefits Bangladesh was a cluster-randomized controlled trial of water, sanitation, hygiene, and nutrition interventions (NCT01590095). The sanitation intervention included provision of or upgrades to improved latrines, sani-scoops for feces removal, children’s potties, and in-person behavioral promotion. Promotion was intensive up to 2 years after intervention initiation, decreased in intensity between years 2 to 3, and stopped after 3 years. Access to and reported use of latrines was high in both arms, and latrine quality was significantly improved by the intervention, while use of child feces management tools was low. We enrolled a random subset of households from the sanitation and control arms into a longitudinal substudy, which measured child health with quarterly visits between 1 to 3.5 years after intervention implementation. The study period therefore included approximately 1 year of high-intensity promotion, 1 year of low-intensity promotion, and 6 months with no promotion. We assessed intervention effects on diarrhea and ARI prevalence among children <5 years through intention-to-treat analysis using generalized linear models with robust standard errors. Masking was not possible during data collection, but data analysis was masked. We enrolled 720 households (360 per arm) from the parent trial and made 9,800 child observations between June 2014 and December 2016. Over the entire study period, diarrheal prevalence was lower among children in the sanitation arm (11.9%) compared to the control arm (14.5%) (prevalence ratio [PR] = 0.81, 95% CI 0.66, 1.00, p = 0.05; prevalence difference [PD] = −0.027, 95% CI −0.053, 0, p = 0.05). ARI prevalence did not differ between sanitation (21.3%) and control (22.7%) arms (PR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.82, 1.05, p = 0.23; PD = −0.016, 95% CI −0.043, 0.010, p = 0.23). There were no significant differences in intervention effects between periods with high-intensity versus low-intensity/no promotion. Study limitations include use of caregiver-reported symptoms to define health outcomes and limited data collected after promotion ceased. Conclusions: The observed effect of the WASH Benefits Bangladesh sanitation intervention on diarrhea in children appeared to be sustained for at least 3.5 years after implementation, including 1.5 years after heavy promotion ceased. Existing latrine access was high in the study setting, suggesting that improving on-site latrine quality can deliver health benefits when latrine use practices are in place. Further work is needed to understand how latrine adoption can be achieved and sustained in settings with low existing access and how sanitation programs can adopt transformative approaches of excreta management, including safe disposal of child and animal feces, to generate a hygienic home environment. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01590095; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01590095.

Three of four recent major sanitation intervention trials found no effect on diarrhea. These results conflicted with longstanding beliefs from decades of literature. To understand this discordance, we placed recent trials into the historical context that preceded them in two ways. First, we evaluated the history of published literature reviews on sanitation and diarrhea. Second, we conducted meta-analyses on studies from the most recent systematic review to uncover features that predict effectiveness. We found that 13 literature reviews dating to 1983 consistently estimated a significant protective effect of sanitation against diarrhea. However, these were marred by flawed studies and inappropriately averaged effects across widely heterogeneous interventions and contexts. Our meta-analyses highlight that the overall effect of sanitation on diarrhea was largely driven by sewerage and interventions that improved more than sanitation alone. There is no true overall effect of sanitation because variability between intervention types and implementation contexts is too complex to average. Ultimately, the null effects of recent latrine interventions are not surprising. Instead, the one trial that found a strong relative reduction in diarrhea is the historical outlier. The development of transformative sanitation interventions requires a better understanding of the social and environmental contexts that determine intervention effectiveness.

Background: The WASH benefits Bangladesh trial multi-component sanitation intervention reduced diarrheal disease among children < 5 years. Intervention components included latrine upgrades, child feces management tools, and behavioral promotion. It remains unclear which components most impacted diarrhea. Methods: We conducted mediation analysis within a subset of households (n = 720) from the sanitation and control arms. Potential mediators were categorized into indicators of latrine quality, latrine use practices, and feces management practices. We estimated average causal mediation effects (ACME) as prevalence differences (PD), defined as the intervention’s effect on diarrhea through its effect on the mediator. Results: The intervention improved all indicators compared to controls. We found significant mediation through multiple latrine use and feces management practice indicators. The strongest mediators during monsoon seasons were reduced open defecation among children aged < 3 and 3–8 years, and increased disposal of child feces into latrines. The strongest mediators during dry seasons were access to a flush/pour-flush latrine, reduced open defecation among children aged 3–8 years, and increased disposal of child feces into latrines. Individual mediation effects were small (PD = 0.5–2 percentage points) compared to the overall intervention effect but collectively describe significant mediation pathways. Discussion: The effect of the WASH Benefits Bangladesh sanitation intervention on diarrheal disease was mediated through improved child feces management and reduced child open defecation. Although the intervention significantly improved latrine quality, relatively high latrine quality at baseline may have limited benefits from additional improvements. Targeting safe child feces management may increase the health benefits of rural sanitation interventions.