No abstract

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.

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 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.

Background: Reusing wastewater for irrigation is a longstanding practice that enhances crop yields and improves climate resilience. Without treatment, however, wastewater contains harmful pathogens and chemicals. Reuse of untreated wastewater has been shown to be harmful to the health of nearby communities, but the routes of exposure are unknown and do not appear to be occupational. Some routes occur throughout entire communities, such as food contamination. Other routes may be spatially dependent, such as spread by domestic animals or through aerosolization. Objectives: To examine whether those wastewater exposure routes with a spatial dependency affect health, we estimated the risks of diarrheal disease in children under age 5 associated with living near wastewater canals, while adjusting for potential individual- and household-level confounders. Methods: We conducted three surveys over 1 y in the Mezquital Valley, Mexico, to measure diarrhea in children. The distance between each participating household and a wastewater canal was measured using GPS coordinates. The association between proximity and diarrhea was estimated with a multilevel logistic regression model accounting for spatial autocorrelation. Results: A total of 564 households completed one to three surveys, resulting in 1,856 survey observations of 646 children. Children living from a canal had 45% lower odds of diarrhea than those living within of a canal, and children living away had 70% lower odds of diarrhea [ vs. adjusted odds ratio , 95% credible interval (CI): 0.33, 0.91; vs. adjusted , 95% CI: 0.11, 0.82]. Discussion: The estimated decline in diarrheal prevalence with household distance from a canal persisted after controlling for occupational exposure. Identifying the specific routes of exposure that drive this relationship will help identify which interventions, such as upstream treatment, can reduce health risks for entire communities where wastewater exposure occurs. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6443