Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Bertha Briceno (WB), Aidan Coville (WB), Sebastian Martinez (IDB) In collaboration with multiple partners from the Tanzanian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, WSP and UC Berkeley
Motivation
Handwashing with soap at critical times is low; observed rates range from 0-34% (Scott et al 2003) Reviews estimate a percentage reduction in diarrhoeal risk of 42% (3151%) for high-quality studies; and 44% risk reduction when involving soap. (Curtis and Cairncross , 2003) Soap is rarely used for handwashing; laundry, bathing and washing dishes are prioritized (GHD Planners Guide) Handwashing with soap at critical times can reduce diarrhea by over 40% (Cairncross et. al, 2010; Waddington et. al, 2009) Most of the evidence is limited to highly-intense and smallscale interventions (efficacy trials)
Emerging evidence on large programs show modest behavior changes that have not resulted in health effects yet (SHEWA-B
evaluation)
Two questions
1. HWWS has been proven to have large impacts in efficacy trials, but what happens when we try to take this to scale?
We run a randomized control trial across rural Tanzania on a Government-led (WSP-supported) hygiene campaign
Experimental design explores the effect of HWWS alone, sanitation promotion alone, and the combination of both
1. 2. 3. 4.
Intervention summary Main results (the What) Contextualizing the results (the Why) Implications
Intervention Summary
10 project districts
181 wards
3619 Households
Groups are statistically balanced at baseline
Random assignment
2013/14
T1 = HWWS (45 wards) T2 = TSSM (44 wards) T3= COMBO (46 wards) CONTROL (46 wards)
July 2011
Theory of change
Awareness / Knowledge
Improved health
HWWS RESULTS
Awareness / Knowledge
*
33%
40%
40%
*
46%
Control HWWS TSSM COMBO
25%
20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
*
51%
* *
24%
60%
50% 40% 30% 20%
58%
Control
HWWS TSSM COMBO
14%
10%
0%
Awareness / Knowledge
0.222 0.230
Control HWWS TSSM COMBO
*
0.34 0.3
*
0.34
Awareness / Knowledge
*22 HHs in 3619 found to use tippy taps (19 in combination ward)
Control
* *
1%
*
6% 4% 5%
11%
3%
1%
4%
0% Soap present in HH HH has a HW device HH has a fixed HW Device is within 6m of device toilet
HWWS practice
n (households) = 720; n (exposure events) = 2572
18% 16% 14% 14% 12% 16%
12%
10% 8% 6% 4%
*
8%
4%
2%
*
4%
Control
HWWS TSSM COMBO
3%
2%
0%
Awareness / Knowledge
*
7.13
7.18 6.69
Control HWWS TSSM
5
4 3
COMBO
*
1.7
1.92
*
1.75 1.88
Control HWWS TSSM COMBO
child cleanliness
Awareness / Knowledge
Improved health
N = 34,080
16.8% 15.6% 15.9%
*
14.5%
Control HWWS TSSM COMBO
N = 5,768
8.6%
10%
8% 6% 4% 2% 0%
8.2%
8.5%
7.6%
height-for-age
-1
Control
*
-1.94 -1.90 -1.95 -1.95
-2
-2.5
*
50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 41.4% 41.8% 43.7% 47.1%
20%
15% 10% 5% 0%
In summary
HWWS:
High recall of interventions Very low base rates for HWWS activities
Combined Wards:
Highest reported exposure in TSSM and HWWS
Similar changes in HW behavior and latrine improvement as
individual interventions Strong but biologically questionable health impacts this is an important, but puzzling issue
Thank You