IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0124688.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evidence on the Effectiveness of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) Interventions on Health Outcomes in Humanitarian Crises: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Anita Ramesh
  • Karl Blanchet
  • Jeroen H J Ensink
  • Bayard Roberts

Abstract

Background: Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions are amongst the most crucial in humanitarian crises, although the impact of the different WASH interventions on health outcomes remains unclear. Aim: To examine the quantity and quality of evidence on WASH interventions on health outcomes in humanitarian crises, as well as evaluate current evidence on their effectiveness against health outcomes in these contexts. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted of primary and grey quantitative literature on WASH interventions measured against health outcomes in humanitarian crises occurring from 1980–2014. Populations of interest were those in resident in humanitarian settings, with a focus on acute crisis and early recovery stages of humanitarian crises in low and middle-income countries. Interventions of interest were WASH-related, while outcomes of interest were health-related. Study quality was assessed via STROBE/CONSORT criteria. Results were analyzed descriptively, and PRISMA reporting was followed. Results: Of 3963 studies initially retrieved, only 6 published studies measured a statistically significant change in health outcome as a result of a WASH intervention. All 6 studies employed point-of-use (POU) water quality interventions, with 50% using safe water storage (SWS) and 35% using household water treatment (HWT). All 6 studies used self-reported diarrhea outcomes, 2 studies also reported laboratory confirmed outcomes, and 2 studies reported health treatment outcomes (e.g. clinical admissions). 1 study measured WASH intervention success in relation to both health and water quality outcomes; 1 study recorded uptake (use of soap) as well as health outcomes. 2 studies were unblinded randomized-controlled trials, while 4 were uncontrolled longitudinal studies. 2 studies were graded as providing high quality evidence; 3 studies provided moderate and 1 study low quality evidence. Conclusion: The current evidence base on the impact of WASH interventions on health outcomes in humanitarian crises is extremely limited, and numerous methodological limitations limit the ability to determine associative, let alone causal, relationships.

Suggested Citation

  • Anita Ramesh & Karl Blanchet & Jeroen H J Ensink & Bayard Roberts, 2015. "Evidence on the Effectiveness of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) Interventions on Health Outcomes in Humanitarian Crises: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0124688
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124688
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0124688
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0124688&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0124688?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:pone00:0124688. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.