Uptake of household disinfection kits as an additional measure in response to a cholera outbreak in urban areas of Haiti

Gartley, M; Valeh, P; Lange, Rink de; DiCarlo, Stephen E.; Viscusi, A; Lenglet, Annick; Fesselet, Jean‐Francois

doi:10.2166/wh.2013.050

Cited by 24 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…bleach, a cloth, a scrubbing brush and an instruction book (Gartley et al 2013). Selfreported use of the disinfection kits was 98%, with 94% of recipients reporting the instructions were clear and simple; however, no verification on correct use or reduced transmission was reported.…”

Section: Box 4: Household Spraying With Chlorine Solutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Short-term WASH interventions in emergency response: a systematic review

Yates¹,

Allen²,

Joseph³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Box 4: Household Spraying With Chlorine Solutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Costs of items: HWT (Imanishi et al 2014, Dunston et al 2001, Tokplo 2015, Handzel and Bamrah 2006, Clasen and Boisson 2006, hygiene kits (Gartley et al 2013, Plan 2013 or large scale treatment options ).…”

Section: Economic Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Short-term WASH interventions in emergency response: a systematic review

Yates¹,

Allen²,

Joseph³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After a 30-40 minute group hygiene session, kits were given to the patient or caretaker, including: 0.5-1 kg of soap, a 14L bucket, a 10L jerry can, 3.8L of bleach, a cloth, a scrubbing brush and an instruction book (Gartley et al, 2013). In this high bias evaluation, self-reported use of the disinfection kits is 98 percent, with 94 percent of recipients reporting the instructions were clear and simple; however, no verification on correct use or reduced transmission was reported.…”

Section: Household Spraying With Chlorine Solutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Cost of a disinfection kit was the only reported cost in an evaluation from Haiti (Gartley et al, 2013), while costs per beneficiary were calculated without the critical hygiene kit values (Gauthier, 2014).…”

Section: Economic Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

WASH Interventions in Disease Outbreak Response

Yates¹,

Allen²,

Joseph³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. We would also like to thank Karin Gallandat for assistance in processing the French evaluations and Karen Vagts, a Tufts University librarian, for helping with the search strategy. Finally, we would like to thank the organizations and individuals who contributed grey literature documents that were critical to this review. Action Contre la Faim and Oxfam, in particular, made significant contributions to advance this review. Series editorsThe report forms part of a series of humanitarian evidence syntheses and systematic reviews covering child protection, market support, mental health, nutrition, pastoralist livelihoods, shelter, urban contexts and water, sanitation and hygiene.The reports and corresponding protocols (methodology) can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/dfid-research-outputs  http://fic.tufts.edu/research-item/the-humanitarian-evidence-program/  http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/our-work/humanitarian/humanitarian-evidenceprogrammeThe series editors are: Roxanne Krystalli, Eleanor Ott and Lisa Walmsley. Photo creditAs part of Oxfam's cholera response in Juba, South Sudan, teams of public health volunteers have been teaching affected communities about the importance of keeping themselves and their environment clean. May 2014. Kieran Doherty/Oxfam. © Copyright Oxfam GB 2017This publication is subject to copyright but the text may be used free of charge for the purposes of advocacy, campaigning, education and research, provided that the source is acknowledged in full. The copyright holder requests that all such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in any other circumstances, or for reuse in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, permission must be secured and a fee may be charged. WASH interventions are commonly implemented as part of emergency response activities (i.e. in response to disease outbreaks) in LMICs. WASH interventions are provided to large populations to reduce the risk of disease transmission in a variety of settings. This synthesis focuses on WASH interventions targeted at populations affected by cholera, Ebola virus disease (hereafter 'Ebola'), hepatitis E, hepatitis A, typhoid, acute watery diarrhoea and bacillary shigellosis (dysentery).The review focuses on the following 10 WASH interventions:  the occurrence of disease in excess of the normal baseline (two times the baseline) or a sudden spike in cases (two times the incidence of new cases) a single case of a communicable disease long absent from a population, or caused by a pathogen not previously recognized in that community or area  emergence of a previously unknown disease  a single case of particular diseases of interest (cholera, Ebola and hepatitis E).The evidence synthesis aims to: verify the quality of existing evidence relating to WASH interventions in humanitarian settings  help researchers identify the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and thus to recognize potential improvements and opportunities for future research  assist practitioners and policy m...

show abstract

“…Costs of items: HWT (Imanishi et al, 2014, Dunston et al, 2001, Tokplo, 2015, Handzel and Bamrah, 2006, Clasen and Boisson, 2006, hygiene kits (Gartley et al, 2013, Plan, 2013 or large-scale treatment options (Dorea et al, 2009). …”

Section: Cost-effectiveness Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short-term WASH interventions in emergency responses in low- and middle-income countries

Yates¹,

Allen²,

Joseph³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) is an international grant-making NGO promoting evidence-informed development policies and programmes. We are the global leader in funding, producing and synthesising high-quality evidence of what works, how, why and at what cost. We believe that better and policy-relevant evidence will make development more effective and improve people's lives. 3ie systematic reviews 3ie systematic reviews examine available high-quality evidence on the effects of social and economic development interventions in low-and middle-income countries. These reviews follow scientifically recognised review methods, and are peer reviewed and quality assured according to internationally accepted standards. 3ie is providing leadership in demonstrating rigorous review methodologies, such as using theory-based designs, for combining different types of evidence suited to respond to the complex and dynamic contexts and challenges of development. 3ie also publishes summary reports based on the full reviews that are designed for use by policymakers and programme managers. About this summary report InterventionsEmergency WASH interventions differ from development interventions because of the speed, scale and approach that are taken in emergency response activities. The needs of emergency-affected populations are often immediate, requiring rapidly increasing access to water and sanitation services. These situations also require the promotion of activities that may be unfamiliar to the population (e.g. treating water with chlorine for the first time). The main components of emergency WASH interventions include water, sanitation and hygiene interventions. Within the spectrum of WASH, 13 specific interventions common in emergencies have been included in this review: pumping wells flooded with saltwater; well disinfection; large-scale source treatment; small-scale source treatment; chlorine-based household water treatment; filtration-based household water treatment; other household water treatment; latrines and latrine alternatives; hygiene promotion; hygiene kits; environmental hygiene; and multiple WASH interventions carried out as a package. This review aims to assess the effectiveness of these interventions. MethodsA comprehensive and systematic search strategy was developed to identify published and grey literature. Studies were identified by using keywords to search nine peer-reviewed databases and more than 50 responding agency websites. Direct solicitation of individuals and agencies was also conducted through global email lists, conferences and personal contacts.Identified studies were screened by title, abstract and then full text. To be considered for inclusion, interventions needed to be WASH projects carried out within 12 months of a disaster or outbreak, less than 12 months in duration, occurring in a low-and middle-income country (L&MIC) and restricted to 1995-2016. Quantitative (experimental and non-experimental designs) and qualitative methodological designs were eligible, and bo...

show abstract

Uptake of household disinfection kits as an additional measure in response to a cholera outbreak in urban areas of Haiti

Cited by 24 publications

References 4 publications

Short-term WASH interventions in emergency response: a systematic review

Short-term WASH interventions in emergency response: a systematic review

WASH Interventions in Disease Outbreak Response

Short-term WASH interventions in emergency responses in low- and middle-income countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About