2018
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-018-2709-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

WASH Benefits Bangladesh trial: management structure for achieving high coverage in an efficacy trial

Abstract: BackgroundWater, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) efficacy trials deliver interventions to the target population under optimal conditions to estimate their effects on outcomes of interest, to inform subsequent selection for inclusion in routine programs. A systematic and intensive approach to intervention delivery is required to achieve the high-level uptake necessary to measure efficacy. We describe the intervention delivery system adopted in the WASH Benefits Bangladesh study, as part of a three-paper series o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
32
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Four studies evaluated sanitation hardware and behaviour change interventions, which included the provision of child sanitation hardware (potties and sani‐scoops) and behaviour messaging (Caruso 2019 IND; Christensen 2015a KEN; Luby 2018 BGD; Null 2018 KEN). Three of these trials were from WASH Benefits (WASH B) study, one from the pilot in Kenya (Christensen 2015a KEN), and on the main outcomes from Kenya (Null 2018 KEN) and Bangladesh (Luby 2018 BGD). The WASH B studies included several study arms, for this review we included only the sanitation versus control results as they were most relevant.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Four studies evaluated sanitation hardware and behaviour change interventions, which included the provision of child sanitation hardware (potties and sani‐scoops) and behaviour messaging (Caruso 2019 IND; Christensen 2015a KEN; Luby 2018 BGD; Null 2018 KEN). Three of these trials were from WASH Benefits (WASH B) study, one from the pilot in Kenya (Christensen 2015a KEN), and on the main outcomes from Kenya (Null 2018 KEN) and Bangladesh (Luby 2018 BGD). The WASH B studies included several study arms, for this review we included only the sanitation versus control results as they were most relevant.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Stanton 1987 BGD was conducted in urban Bangladesh; Barrios 2008 PHI in rural Philippines; Cameron 2013 INA in rural Indonesia; Caruso 2019 IND, Dickinson 2015 IND, Nair 2017 IND, and Patil 2014 IND in rural India; and Luby 2018 BGD in rural Bangladesh. Altmann 2018 TCD was conducted in Chad, Briceño 2015 TAN in rural Tanzania, Christensen 2015a KEN and Null 2018 KEN in rural Kenya, Haggerty 1994 DRC in rural Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Hashi 2017 ETH in rural Ethiopia, Jinadu 2007 NGR in rural Nigeria, Pickering 2015 MLI in rural Mali, Sarrassat 2018 BUR in rural Burkina Faso, Sinharoy 2017 RWA in rural Rwanda, and Humphrey 2019 ZIM in rural Zimbabwe.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This was followed by regular monthly meeting between supervisors and CHPs. Refresher training was also arranged about a year after initiation of intervention (Unicomb et al, 2018). Each cluster of 6–8 months was monitored by one CHP.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hence, human feces were observed in 21% of sanitation-arm compounds and 30% of control-arm compounds at the time of our STH assessment (33). Further details of the trial design, intervention delivery and uptake assessments have been described elsewhere (33,(35)(36)(37).…”
Section: Intervention Uptakementioning
confidence: 99%