IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1004982.html

Cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost analyses of promoting handwashing with soap: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Ian Ross
  • David Bath
  • Joseph Wells
  • Robert Dreibelbis
  • Regina Ejemot-Nwadiaro
  • Joanna Esteves Mills
  • Giulia Greco
  • Catherine Pitt
  • Oliver Cumming

Abstract

Background: Promoting handwashing with soap reduces risk of diarrhoea by 30% and respiratory infections by 17%. Handwashing promotion in nonhealthcare settings is widely considered cost-effective, but there is no systematic review on this topic. To inform resource allocation decisions, we reviewed the state and quality of evidence regarding cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost of interventions promoting handwashing with soap in domestic, educational, and childcare settings globally. Methods and findings: We searched Medline, Embase, Global Health, EconLit, and Web of Science for studies published from January 1, 1980 to September 3, 2025, as well as grey literature (PROSPERO CRD42021288727). We included full economic evaluations comparing the cost of two or more interventions with their outcomes. We included interventions promoting the practice of handwashing with soap, including those providing information, motivational campaigns, and/or handwashing facilities. We scored quality of reporting using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. We identified 15 studies of which 3 were in high-income countries. Five used empirical data collection to evaluate interventions actually implemented and 10 modelled from secondary data only. Amongst the 3 medium- or high-quality studies reporting cost per disability-adjusted life-year averted, estimates ranged from US$ 37 to 937 (2024 prices). Of these 3 estimates, 2 were cost-effective compared to plausible thresholds for the respective country. In the only medium- or high-quality benefit-cost study, the mean benefit-cost ratio was 2.1 with “medium” levels of handwashing adoption (40% of population) and adherence (50% of those adopting). Few studies measured or modelled adoption of handwashing over time, and none which focussed on diarrhoea also valued respiratory infections. Limitations of our review include that we excluded alcohol-based handrub interventions, and that there is high uncertainty about cost-effectiveness thresholds. Conclusions: Promoting handwashing with soap is very likely to be cost-effective for interventions that successfully increase and sustain adoption of handwashing behaviours. More empirical studies are needed, especially those comparing multiple promotion options and valuing reductions in respiratory infections as well as diarrhoea. Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?: In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Ian Ross and colleagues assess the evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost of interventions promoting handwashing with soap in domestic, school or childcare settings globally.

Suggested Citation

  • Ian Ross & David Bath & Joseph Wells & Robert Dreibelbis & Regina Ejemot-Nwadiaro & Joanna Esteves Mills & Giulia Greco & Catherine Pitt & Oliver Cumming, 2026. "Cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost analyses of promoting handwashing with soap: A systematic review," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 23(4), pages 1-19, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1004982
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004982
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004982
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004982&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004982?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1004982. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.