IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/camsys/v13y2017i1p1-447.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Approaches to promote handwashing and sanitation behaviour change in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a mixed method systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Emmy De Buck
  • Hans Van Remoortel
  • Karin Hannes
  • Thashlin Govender
  • Selvan Naidoo
  • Bert Avau
  • Axel Vande Veegaete
  • Alfred Musekiwa
  • Vittoria Lutje
  • Margaret Cargo
  • Hans‐Joachim Mosler
  • Philippe Vandekerckhove
  • Taryn Young

Abstract

This Campbell Systematic Review examines the effectiveness of different approaches for promoting handwashing and sanitation behaviour change, and factors affecting implementation, in low and middle‐income countries. The review summarises evidence from 42 impact evaluations, and from 28 qualitative studies. Community‐based approaches which include a sanitation component can increase handwashing with soap at key times; use of latrines and safe disposal of faeces; and reduce the frequency of open defecation. Social marketing seems less effective. The approach mainly shows an effect on sanitation outcomes when interventions combine handwashing and sanitation components. Sanitation and hygiene messaging with a focus on handwashing with soap has an effect after the intervention has ended, but there is little impact on sanitation outcomes. However, these effects are not sustainable in the long term. Using elements of psychosocial theory in a small‐scale handwashing promotion intervention, or adding theory‐based elements such as infrastructure promotion or public commitment to an existing promotional approach, seem promising for handwashing with soap. None of the approaches described have consistent effects on behavioural factors such as knowledge, skills and attitude. There are no consistent effects on health. Plain language summary Community‐based approaches are most effective in promoting changes in hygiene practices, but sustainability is a challenge Community‐based approaches to promote handwashing and sanitation efforts seem to work better than social marketing, messaging and interventions based on psychosocial theory. Programs combining hygiene and sanitation measures appears to have a larger impact than either one alone. What is this review about? Diarrhoeal diseases are very common causes of death in low and middle‐income countries. Improved sanitation and hygiene reduce diarrhoea, but adoption remains a challenge. This review assesses the evidence for two questions: (1) how effective are different approaches to promote handwashing and sanitation behaviour change; and (2) what factors influence the implementation of these approaches? What is the aim of this review? This Campbell Systematic Review examines the effectiveness of different approaches for promoting handwashing and sanitation behaviour change, and factors affecting implementation, in low and middle‐income countries. The review summarises evidence from 42 impact evaluations, and from 28 qualitative studies. What studies are included? Studies of effectiveness had to be impact evaluations using an experimental or quasi‐experimental design and analytical observational studies. Implementation studies used qualitative designs. Forty‐two quantitative studies and 28 qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria. The quantitative studies were conducted in LMICs worldwide, with the majority of the studies in South Asia and Sub‐Saharan Africa. What are the main findings of this review? Community‐based approaches which include a sanitation component can increase handwashing with soap at key times; use of latrines and safe disposal of faeces; and reduce the frequency of open defecation. Social marketing seems less effective. The approach mainly shows an effect on sanitation outcomes when interventions combine handwashing and sanitation components. Sanitation and hygiene messaging with a focus on handwashing with soap has an effect after the intervention has ended, but there is little impact on sanitation outcomes. However, these effects are not sustainable in the long term. Using elements of psychosocial theory in a small‐scale handwashing promotion intervention, or adding theory‐based elements such as infrastructure promotion or public commitment to an existing promotional approach, seem promising for handwashing with soap. None of the approaches described have consistent effects on behavioural factors such as knowledge, skills and attitude. There are no consistent effects on health. What factors affect implementation? Implementation is affected by length of the intervention; visit frequency; use of short communication messages; availability of training materials; kindness, respect, status and accessibility of the implementer; recipient awareness about costs and benefits and their access to infrastructure and social capital. For community‐based approaches, involvement of the community, enthusiasm of community leaders, having a sense of ownership, the implementer being part of the community, gender of the implementer, trust, income generating activities, clear communication and developing a culture of cooperation facilitated implementation. For sanitation and hygiene messaging, text messages should be short and culturally appropriate, passive teaching methods in schools and reminders should be frequent and over a long period. Barriers include illiteracy and a lack of interest and involvement from the family in case of a school intervention. For the social marketing approach barriers were mainly about the use of sanitation loans such as lack of communication to latrine business owners about which area to cover, loan processing times and sanitation loans not reaching poor people. What do the findings of this review mean? Promotional approaches aimed at handwashing and sanitation behaviour change can be effective in terms of handwashing with soap, latrine use, safe faeces disposal and open defecation. A combination of different promotional elements is probably the most effective strategy. Identifying and tackling the different barriers and facilitators that influence the implementation of these promotional approaches can increase effectiveness. An important implication for research is that there is a need for a more uniform method of measuring and reporting on handwashing, latrine use, safe faeces disposal, and open defecation. How up‐to‐date is this review? The review authors searched for studies published until March 2016; this Campbell Systematic Review was published in May 2017. Executive summary/Abstract BACKGROUND Water and sanitation are at the very core of sustainable development, critical to the survival of people and the planet. The Sustainable Development Goal 6 (i.e. ‘ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all’) addresses the issues relating to drinking water, sanitation and hygiene. It is unclear which Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) promotional approach is the most effective for sanitation and hygiene behaviour change, and other outcomes leading to behaviour change (e.g. learning outcomes) or longer term outcomes that follow from behaviour change (e.g. mortality, morbidity). OBJECTIVES The overall goal of this systematic review is to show which promotional approaches are effective in changing handwashing and sanitation behaviour, and which implementation factors affect the success or failure of such interventions. This goal is achieved by answering two different review questions. Question 1: What is the effectiveness of different approaches for promoting handwashing and sanitation behaviour change, in communities in low‐ and middle‐income countries? Question 2: What factors influence the implementation of approaches to promote handwashing and sanitation behaviour change, in communities in low‐ and middle‐income countries? SEARCH METHODS A comprehensive search was conducted to identify both published and unpublished studies. Using a sensitive search strategy, we searched the following databases from 1980 to March 2016: Medline (PubMed), Cochrane CENTRAL Issue 2, Applied Social Sciences index and abstracts (ASSIA, ProQuest), Global Health (CABI), EMBASE (OVID), PsycInfo (EBSCOHost), ERIC (EBSCOHost), Global Index Medicus, 3ie Impact Evaluation Database, International bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS, ProQuest), Sociological abstracts (ProQuest) and Social Sciences citation index (SSCI, Web of Science). To find unpublished material and relevant programme documents, we contacted various research groups and organizations and/or checked the relevant websites. SELECTION CRITERIA Participants included both children and adults from low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs), as defined by the World Bank, at the time the intervention was implemented. Studies performed at an individual, household, school or community level were included, whereas studies conducted in institutional settings (e.g. hospitals) were excluded. The following promotional approaches or elements to promote handwashing, latrine use, safe faeces disposal, and to discourage open defecation (primary outcomes), were included: community‐based approaches, social marketing approaches, sanitation and hygiene messaging and elements of psychosocial theory. Secondary outcomes of interest were behavioural factors (knowledge, skills, attitude, norms, self‐regulation) and health outcomes (morbidity, mortality). For Question 1 (effectiveness of promotional approaches), we included impact evaluations using an experimental, quasi‐experimental design and observational analytical studies. To answer Question 2 (implementation aspects), all qualitative study designs addressing factors influencing implementation of the promotional approaches were considered for inclusion. This included, for example, grounded theory, case studies, phenomenological studies, ethnographic research, action research and thematic approaches to qualitative data analysis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Study selection and data extraction (including risk of bias assessment) were performed independently by two reviewers, using EPPI‐Reviewer software. Study authors of all included papers were contacted by email (in July 2016) to ask for any relevant information, related to the population, intervention or outcomes, that was missing or not reported in the paper. Any disagreements between the two data extractors were resolved through discussion, or by consulting another review co‐author. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the overall quality/certainty of evidence from quantitative studies included in this review. The qualitative studies were assessed using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Program) checklist. Evidence relating to Question 1 (effectiveness of promotional approaches) was synthesized in a quantitative way (meta‐analysis), where possible. RESULTS Forty‐two quantitative studies and 28 qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria. The quantitative studies were conducted in LMICs worldwide, with the majority of the studies in South Asia and Sub‐Saharan Africa. Most quantitative studies (69%) were performed in a rural setting and only 14% of the studies took place in an urban setting (with an additional 10% in an “informal‐rural setting”). The effect of a promotional approach versus not using a promotional approach on sanitation and handwashing behaviour change, behavioural factors (knowledge, skills, attitude, norms and self‐regulation) and health‐related outcomes (morbidity and mortality), was studied in 34 different studies. In addition, 7 studies compared specific promotional approaches versus other promotional approaches, and one study compared two different communication strategies. All studies showed substantial variability in programme content, study types, outcome types, methods of outcome measurement and timing of measurement. Risk of bias assessments of included studies were influenced by unclear reporting or lack of reporting of key methodological aspects of the study design and process. Five percent of the experimental studies (n=2) had a high risk of selection bias, 40% had a high risk of detection bias (n=17), 28% had a high risk of attrition bias (n=12) and 48% had a high risk of reporting bias (n=20). Most quasi‐experimental and observational studies had bias in the selection of participants, some were at high risk of confounding, methods of outcome assessment were not comparable across intervention groups, and outcome assessors were aware of the interventions that the groups received. For the body of evidence, in most assessments, the certainty of evidence was considered as ‘low’ and in some cases ‘moderate’ or ‘very low’. For the qualitative studies, an overall CASP score was given to the studies, and only 21% of the studies had a score less than 8/10. In studies with a lower score the relationship between researcher and participants was not adequately considered or ethical issues were not explicitly reported. We categorised the studies into 4 categories of promotional approaches or elements: (1) community‐based approaches, a promotional approach where there is typically community involvement and engagement, and shared decision‐making is part of the approach. All but one study in this category implemented a sanitation intervention, in some cases combined with a handwashing with soap and/or water supply/water quality component. (2) social marketing approaches, a promotional approach combining enterprise approaches with demand stimulation, and assuming that people both want and are able to change their behaviour. All but two studies in this category implemented a handwashing with soap intervention, in some cases combined with a sanitation and/or water supply/water quality component. (3) sanitation and hygiene messaging, is a predominantly directive educational approach, consisting mainly of one‐way communication, designed to help individuals and communities improve their health, by increasing their knowledge and/or skills. All but one study in this category implemented a handwashing with soap intervention, in some cases combined with a sanitation and/or water supply/water quality component. (4) elements of psychosocial theory, which are derived from a formal psychosocial theory and form the basis of the intervention. All but one study in this category implemented a handwashing‐only intervention, and one study implemented a combined handwashing and sanitation intervention. The most consistent results were obtained within the category of community‐based approaches, where at least a sanitation component was part of the programme. Working in a community‐based way may be effective in terms of handwashing with soap, and sanitation outcomes (latrine use, safe faeces disposal, and open defecation). Limited positive results on the knowledge of key handwashing times were found. Influencing factors that could play a specific role in the implementation of community‐based interventions are: a facilitator (e.g. health promoter, community leader) that is part of and representative of the community, the attitude of the implementer/facilitator, providing enough information, and creating a culture of cooperation. In addition, the gender of the facilitator seems to play an important role, since women prefer to discuss private issues with somebody of the same sex. The use of social marketing approaches seems to be less uniformly applicable, and mainly show an effect on sanitation outcomes when interventions have a combined handwashing and sanitation component. A specific barrier that could play a role in the implementation of social marketing interventions was the use of sanitation loans (slow and expensive process, not reaching the poor and people with lack of financial knowledge). Additional income generation would be an important facilitator for this type of approach. Sanitation and hygiene messaging, with a focus on handwashing with soap, seem to have an effect on handwashing programmes immediately after the intervention has ended. However, these effects are not sustainable in the long term. This type of promotional approach may make little or no difference to sanitation outcomes. With this approach it seems key that messages are delivered using active teaching methods and that messaging is innovative and culturally sensitive. In case of school level interventions with children, the duration of the intervention and involving the children's parents seem to be positive influencing factors. Using elements of psychosocial theory in a small‐scale handwashing promotion intervention, or adding theory‐based elements such as infrastructure promotion or public commitment to an existing promotional approach, seems promising for handwashing with soap. Finally, the methods used for communicating the content of a certain promotional approach, also play a role, and use of interpersonal communication was shown to be effective in certain circumstances. We only found a limited number of studies that incorporated a range of incentives (from soap bars to food or subsidies) into the promotional approach. One study reported promising results when using subsidies as part of the community‐based approach, but more research on the use of subsidies and incentives would be valuable. None of the promotional approaches described in the review showed consistent effects on behavioural factors such as knowledge, skills and attitude. Also no consistent effects on health were demonstrated. Facilitators which were relevant across different promotional approaches were: length of the approach, visit frequency, using short communication messages, availability of training materials, funding/resources and partnerships, kindness and respect of the implementer, accessibility of the implementer, and the implementer's authority/status; as well as, on the side of the recipient, awareness about costs and benefits, social capital, access to infrastructure and availability of space, and others showing the behaviour. AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS Implications for policy and practice. Based on our findings, promotional approaches aimed at handwashing and sanitation behaviour change can be effective in terms of handwashing with soap, latrine use, safe faeces disposal and open defecation. Findings from experimental, quasi‐experimental design and observational analytical studies show that a combination of different promotional elements is probably the most effective strategy. The recognition of different barriers and facilitators that influence the implementation of these promotional approaches may have a triggering effect on its effectiveness. Implications for research. An important implication of our work is that there is an urgent need to use a more uniform method of outcome measurement (type of outcomes, way of assessment, timing of assessment). This will facilitate making conclusions on the effects of promotional approaches in the future. In addition, it is important to further assess barriers and facilitators, identified in this review, alongside quantitative analyses of promotional approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Emmy De Buck & Hans Van Remoortel & Karin Hannes & Thashlin Govender & Selvan Naidoo & Bert Avau & Axel Vande Veegaete & Alfred Musekiwa & Vittoria Lutje & Margaret Cargo & Hans‐Joachim Mosler & Phili, 2017. "Approaches to promote handwashing and sanitation behaviour change in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a mixed method systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 1-447.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:13:y:2017:i:1:p:1-447
    DOI: 10.4073/csr.2017.7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2017.7
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4073/csr.2017.7?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yeager, Beth A. C. & Huttly, Sharon R. A. & Bartolini, Rosario & Martha Rojas & Lanata, Claudio F., 1999. "Defecation practices of young children in a Peruvian shanty town," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 531-541, August.
    2. Nadja Contzen & Sandra De Pasquale & Hans-Joachim Mosler, 2015. "Over-Reporting in Handwashing Self-Reports: Potential Explanatory Factors and Alternative Measurements," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-22, August.
    3. Patil, Sumeet R. & Arnold, Benjamin F. & Salvatore, Alicia & Briceno, Bertha & Colford, Jr., John M. & Gertler, Paul J., 2013. "A randomized, controlled study of a rural sanitation behavior change program in Madhya Pradesh, India," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6702, The World Bank.
    4. Evans, W.D. & Pattanayak, S.K. & Young, S. & Buszin, J. & Rai, S. & Bihm, Jasmine Wallace, 2014. "Social marketing of water and sanitation products: A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 18-25.
    5. McGranahan, Gordon, 2015. "Realizing the Right to Sanitation in Deprived Urban Communities: Meeting the Challenges of Collective Action, Coproduction, Affordability, and Housing Tenure," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 242-253.
    6. Galiani, Sebastian & Gertler, Paul & Orsola-Vidal, Alexandra, 2012. "Promoting handwashing behavior in Peru : the effect of large-scale mass-media and community level interventions," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6257, The World Bank.
    7. Mascie-Taylor, C. G. N. & Karim, R. & Karim, E. & Akhtar, S. & Ahmed, T. & Montanari, R. M., 2003. "The cost-effectiveness of health education in improving knowledge and awareness about intestinal parasites in rural Bangladesh," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 321-330, December.
    8. Jenkins, Marion W. & Curtis, Val, 2005. "Achieving the 'good life': Why some people want latrines in rural Benin," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(11), pages 2446-2459, December.
    9. Allison, Maria Clasina, 2002. "Balancing responsibility for sanitation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(9), pages 1539-1551, November.
    10. Barrett, Hazel & Browne, Angela, 1996. "Health, hygiene and maternal education: Evidence from The Gambia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 43(11), pages 1579-1590, December.
    11. Jenkins, Marion W. & Scott, Beth, 2007. "Behavioral indicators of household decision-making and demand for sanitation and potential gains from social marketing in Ghana," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(12), pages 2427-2442, June.
    12. S. Manikutty, 1997. "Community Participation: So What? Evidence from a Comparative Study of Two Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Projects in India," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 15(2), pages 115-140, June.
    13. Amy J. Pickering & Habiba Djebbari & Carolina Lopez & Massa Coulibaly & Maria Laura Alzua, 2015. "Effect of a community-led sanitation intervention on child diarrhoea and child growth in rural Mali: a cluster-randomised controlled trial," Post-Print hal-01456117, HAL.
    14. Parker Fiebelkorn, Amy & Person, Bobbie & Quick, Robert E. & Vindigni, Stephen M. & Jhung, Michael & Bowen, Anna & Riley, Patricia L., 2012. "Systematic review of behavior change research on point-of-use water treatment interventions in countries categorized as low- to medium-development on the human development index," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(4), pages 622-633.
    15. Briceno, Bertha & Coville, Aidan & Martinez , Sebastian, 2015. "Promoting handwashing and sanitation : evidence from a large-scale randomized trial in rural Tanzania," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7164, The World Bank.
    16. Meredith E Stocks & Stephanie Ogden & Danny Haddad & David G Addiss & Courtney McGuire & Matthew C Freeman, 2014. "Effect of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene on the Prevention of Trachoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-29, February.
    17. Waterkeyn, Juliet & Cairncross, Sandy, 2005. "Creating demand for sanitation and hygiene through Community Health Clubs: A cost-effective intervention in two districts in Zimbabwe," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 1958-1970, November.
    18. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    19. Sebastian Galiani & Paul Gertler & Nicolas Ajzenman & Alexandra Orsola‐Vidal, 2016. "Promoting Handwashing Behavior: The Effects of Large‐scale Community and School‐level Interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(12), pages 1545-1559, December.
    20. Chase, Claire & Do, Quy-Toan, 2012. "Handwashing behavior change at scale : evidence from a randomized evaluation in Vietnam," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6207, The World Bank.
    21. Eric C Strunz & David G Addiss & Meredith E Stocks & Stephanie Ogden & Jürg Utzinger & Matthew C Freeman, 2014. "Water, Sanitation, Hygiene, and Soil-Transmitted Helminth Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-38, March.
    22. Daniel Bennett & Syed Ali Asjad Naqvi & Wolf‐Peter Schmidt, 2015. "Constraints on Compliance and the Impact of Health Information in Rural Pakistan," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(9), pages 1065-1081, September.
    23. Madeline Baer & Andrea Gerlak, 2015. "Implementing the human right to water and sanitation: a study of global and local discourses," Third World Quarterly, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(8), pages 1527-1545, August.
    24. Ahmed, Nasar U. & Zeitlin, Marian F. & Beiser, Alexa S. & Super, Charles M. & Gershoff, Stanley N., 1993. "A longitudinal study of the impact of behavioural change intervention on cleanliness, diarrhoeal morbidity and growth of children in rural Bangladesh," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 159-171, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Inauen, Jennifer & Lilje, Jonathan & Mosler, Hans-Joachim, 2020. "Refining hand washing interventions by identifying active ingredients: A cluster-randomized controlled trial in rural Zimbabwe," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    2. Hugh Sharma Waddington & Sandy Cairncross, 2021. "PROTOCOL: Water, sanitation and hygiene for reducing childhood mortality in low‐ and middle‐income countries," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), March.
    3. Nawaz, Saima & Iqbal, Nasir, 2021. "How cash transfers program affects environmental poverty among ultra-poor? Insights from the BISP in Pakistan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PB).
    4. Hugh Waddington & Hannah Chirgwin & John Eyers & Yashaswini PrasannaKumar & Duae Zehra & Sandy Cairncross, 2018. "PROTOCOL: Evidence and Gap Map Protocol: Interventions promoting safe water, sanitation, and hygiene for households, communities, schools, and health facilities in low‐ and middle‐income countries," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-41.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Coffey, Diane & Spears, Dean & Vyas, Sangita, 2017. "Switching to sanitation: Understanding latrine adoption in a representative panel of rural Indian households," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 41-50.
    2. Marjorie Chinen & Thomas de Hoop & María Balarin & Lorena Alcázar, 2016. "PROTOCOL: Vocational and business training to increase women's participation in higher skilled occupations in low‐ and middle‐income countries: protocol for a systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 1-46.
    3. Inauen, Jennifer & Lilje, Jonathan & Mosler, Hans-Joachim, 2020. "Refining hand washing interventions by identifying active ingredients: A cluster-randomized controlled trial in rural Zimbabwe," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    4. Barrington, D.J. & Sridharan, S. & Saunders, S.G. & Souter, R.T. & Bartram, J. & Shields, K.F. & Meo, S. & Kearton, A. & Hughes, R.K., 2016. "Improving community health through marketing exchanges: A participatory action research study on water, sanitation, and hygiene in three Melanesian countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 84-93.
    5. Hugh Sharma Waddington & Sandy Cairncross, 2021. "PROTOCOL: Water, sanitation and hygiene for reducing childhood mortality in low‐ and middle‐income countries," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), March.
    6. Crocker, Jonny & Shields, Katherine F. & Venkataramanan, Vidya & Saywell, Darren & Bartram, Jamie, 2016. "Building capacity for water, sanitation, and hygiene programming: Training evaluation theory applied to CLTS management training in Kenya," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 66-76.
    7. María Laura Alzúa & Habiba Djebbari & Amy J. Pickering, 2020. "A Community-Based Program Promotes Sanitation," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 68(2), pages 357-390.
    8. YuJung Julia Lee & Tiffany Radcliff, 2021. "Community interactions and sanitation use by the urban poor: Survey evidence from India’s slums," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 58(4), pages 715-732, March.
    9. Burt, Zachary & Njee, Robert M. & Mbatia, Yolanda & Msimbe, Veritas & Brown, Joe & Clasen, Thomas F. & Malebo, Hamisi M. & Ray, Isha, 2017. "User preferences and willingness to pay for safe drinking water: Experimental evidence from rural Tanzania," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 63-71.
    10. Whittington, Dale & Jeuland, Marc & Barker, Kate & Yuen, Yvonne, 2012. "Setting Priorities, Targeting Subsidies among Water, Sanitation, and Preventive Health Interventions in Developing Countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1546-1568.
    11. Rheinländer, Thilde & Samuelsen, Helle & Dalsgaard, Anders & Konradsen, Flemming, 2010. "Hygiene and sanitation among ethnic minorities in Northern Vietnam: Does government promotion match community priorities?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(5), pages 994-1001, September.
    12. Khurshed Alam & Md. Habibur Rahman, 2019. "Post-disaster recovery in the cyclone Aila affected coastline of Bangladesh: women’s role, challenges and opportunities," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 96(3), pages 1067-1090, April.
    13. Ida Helgegren & Sebastien Rauch & Claudia Cossio & Graciela Landaeta & Jennifer McConville, 2018. "Importance of triggers and veto-barriers for the implementation of sanitation in informal peri-urban settlements – The case of Cochabamba, Bolivia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, April.
    14. Youngmee Tiffany Jung & Ryan James Hum & Wendy Lou & Yu-Ling Cheng, 2017. "Effects of neighbourhood and household sanitation conditions on diarrhea morbidity: Systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, March.
    15. Tidwell, James B. & Terris-Prestholt, Fern & Quaife, Matthew & Aunger, Robert, 2019. "Understanding demand for higher quality sanitation in peri-urban Lusaka, Zambia through stated and revealed preference analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 139-147.
    16. Evan Plous Kresch & Molly Lipscomb & Laura Schechter, 2020. "Externalities and Spillovers from Sanitation and Waste Management in Urban and Rural Neighborhoods," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3), pages 395-420, September.
    17. O'Reilly, Kathleen & Dhanju, Richa & Goel, Abhineety, 2017. "Exploring “The Remote” and “The Rural”: Open Defecation and Latrine Use in Uttarakhand, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 193-205.
    18. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    19. Xue-Ying Xu & Hong Kong & Rui-Xiang Song & Yu-Han Zhai & Xiao-Fei Wu & Wen-Si Ai & Hong-Bo Liu, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Noninvasive Biomarkers to Predict Hepatitis B-Related Significant Fibrosis and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-16, June.
    20. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.

    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:wly:camsys:v:13:y:2017:i:1:p:1-447. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1891-1803 .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1891-1803 .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.