Search

Introduction: Despite evidence for the efficacy and effectiveness of hand hygiene in reducing the transmission of infectious diseases, there are gaps in global normative guidance around hand hygiene in community settings. The goal of this review is to systematically retrieve and synthesise available evidence on hand hygiene in community settings across four areas: (1) effective hand hygiene; (2) minimum requirements; (3) behaviour change and (4) government measures., Methods and Analysis: This protocol entails a two-phased approach to identify relevant studies for multiple related systematic reviews. Phase 1 involves a broad search to capture all studies on hand hygiene in community settings. Databases, trial registries, expert consultations and hand searches of reference lists will be used to ensure an exhaustive search. A comprehensive, electronic search strategy will be used to identify studies indexed in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, Cochrane Library, Global Index Medicus, Scopus, PAIS Index, WHO IRIS, UN Digital Library and World Bank eLibrary published in English from January 1980 to March 2023. The outcome of phase 1 will be a reduced sample of studies from which further screening, specific to research questions across the four key areas can be performed. Two reviewers will independently assess each study for inclusion and disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Quantitative and qualitative data will be extracted following best practices. We will assess all studies using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. All effect measures pertaining to review outcomes will be reported and a narrative synthesis of all studies will be presented including 'data-driven' descriptive themes and 'theory-driven' analytical themes as applicable., Ethics and Dissemination: This systematic review is exempt from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. The findings of the reviews will be disseminated in related peer-reviewed journals., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42023429145., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: Hand hygiene is an important measure to prevent disease transmission., Objective: To summarise current international guideline recommendations for hand hygiene in community settings and to assess to what extent they are consistent and evidence based., Eligibility Criteria: We included international guidelines with one or more recommendations on hand hygiene in community settings-categorised as domestic, public or institutional-published by international organisations, in English or French, between 1 January 1990 and 15 November 2021., Data Sources: To identify relevant guidelines, we searched the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing Database, Google, websites of international organisations, and contacted expert organisations and individuals., Charting Methods: Recommendations were mapped to four areas related to hand hygiene: (1) effective hand hygiene; (2) minimum requirements; (3) behaviour change and (4) government measures. Recommendations were assessed for consistency, concordance and whether supported by evidence., Results: We identified 51 guidelines containing 923 recommendations published between 1999 and 2021 by multilateral agencies and international non-governmental organisations. Handwashing with soap is consistently recommended as the preferred method for hand hygiene across all community settings. Most guidelines specifically recommend handwashing with plain soap and running water for at least 20 s; single-use paper towels for hand drying; and alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) as a complement or alternative to handwashing. There are inconsistent and discordant recommendations for water quality for handwashing, affordable and effective alternatives to soap and ABHR, and the design of handwashing stations. There are gaps in recommendations on soap and water quantity, behaviour change approaches and government measures required for effective hand hygiene. Less than 10% of recommendations are supported by any cited evidence., Conclusion: While current international guidelines consistently recommend handwashing with soap across community settings, there remain gaps in recommendations where clear evidence-based guidance might support more effective policy and investment., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© World Health Organization 2023. Licensee BMJ.)

Introduction: Domestic hand hygiene could prevent over 500 000 attributable deaths per year, but 6 in 10 people in least developed countries (LDCs) do not have a handwashing facility (HWF) with soap and water available at home. We estimated the economic costs of universal access to basic hand hygiene services in household settings in 46 LDCs., Methods: Our model combines quantities of households with no HWF and prices of promotion campaigns, HWFs, soap and water. For quantities, we used estimates from the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme. For prices, we collated data from recent impact evaluations and electronic searches. Accounting for inflation and purchasing power, we calculated costs over 2021-2030, and estimated total cost probabilistically using Monte Carlo simulation., Results: An estimated US$12.2-US$15.3 billion over 10 years is needed for universal hand hygiene in household settings in 46 LDCs. The average annual cost of hand hygiene promotion is US$334 million (24% of annual total), with a further US$233 million for 'top-up' promotion (17%). Together, these promotion costs represent US$0.47 annually per head of LDC population. The annual cost of HWFs, a purpose-built drum with tap and stand, is US$174 million (13%). The annual cost of soap is US$497 million (36%) and water US$127 million (9%)., Conclusion: The annual cost of behavioural change promotion to those with no HWF represents 4.7% of median government health expenditure in LDCs, and 1% of their annual aid receipts. These costs could be covered by mobilising resources from across government and partners, and could be reduced by harnessing economies of scale and integrating hand hygiene with other behavioural change campaigns where appropriate. Innovation is required to make soap more affordable and available for the poorest households., Competing Interests: Competing interests: A portion of RD’s salary is supported through an unrestricted donation to LSHTM by Reckitt, exclusive of the work on this manuscript., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Infection is a leading cause of maternal and newborn mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Clean birthing practices are fundamental to infection prevention efforts, but these are inadequate in LMIC. This scoping study reviews the literature on studies that describe determinants of clean birthing practices of healthcare workers or mothers during the perinatal period in LMIC., Methods: We reviewed literature published between January 2000 and February 2018 providing information on behaviour change interventions, behaviours or behavioural determinants during the perinatal period in LMIC. Following a multi-stage screening process, we extracted key data manually from studies. We mapped identified determinants according to the COM-B behavioural framework, which posits that behaviour is shaped by three categories of determinants - capability, opportunity and motivation., Results: Seventy-eight studies were included in the review: 47 observational studies and 31 studies evaluating an intervention. 51% had a household or community focus, 28% had a healthcare facility focus and 21% focused on both. We identified 31 determinants of clean birthing practices. Determinants related to clean birthing practices as a generalised set of behaviours featured in 50 studies; determinants related specifically to one or more of six predefined behaviours - commonly referred to as "the six cleans" - featured in 31 studies. Determinants of hand hygiene (n = 13) and clean cord care (n = 11) were most commonly reported. Reported determinants across all studies clustered around psychological capability (knowledge) and physical opportunity (access to resources). However, greater heterogeneity in reported behavioural determinants was found across studies investigating specific clean birthing practices compared to those studying clean birthing as a generalised set of behaviours., Conclusions: Efforts to combine clean birthing practices into a single suite of behaviours - such as the "six cleans"- may simplify policy and advocacy efforts. However, each clean practice has a unique set of determinants and understanding what drives or hinders the adoption of these individual practices is critical to designing more effective interventions to improve hygiene behaviours and neonatal and maternal health outcomes in LMIC. Current understanding in this regard remains limited. More theory-grounded formative research is required to understand motivators and social influences across different contexts.

Background: Three large new trials of unprecedented scale and cost, which included novel factorial designs, have found no effect of basic water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions on childhood stunting, and only mixed effects on childhood diarrhea. Arriving at the inception of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, and the bold new target of safely managed water, sanitation and hygiene for all by 2030, these results warrant the attention of researchers, policy-makers and practitioners., Main Body: Here we report the conclusions of an expert meeting convened by the World Health Organization and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to discuss these findings, and present five key consensus messages as a basis for wider discussion and debate in the WASH and nutrition sectors. We judge these trials to have high internal validity, constituting good evidence that these specific interventions had no effect on childhood linear growth, and mixed effects on childhood diarrhea. These results suggest that, in settings such as these, more comprehensive or ambitious WASH interventions may be needed to achieve a major impact on child health., Conclusion: These results are important because such basic interventions are often deployed in low-income rural settings with the expectation of improving child health, although this is rarely the sole justification. Our view is that these three new trials do not show that WASH in general cannot influence child linear growth, but they do demonstrate that these specific interventions had no influence in settings where stunting remains an important public health challenge. We support a call for transformative WASH, in so much as it encapsulates the guiding principle that - in any context - a comprehensive package of WASH interventions is needed that is tailored to address the local exposure landscape and enteric disease burden.

Background : Infections acquired during labour and delivery are a significant cause of maternal and child morbidity and mortality. Adherence to hand hygiene protocols is a critical component of infection prevention strategies, but few studies have closely examined the hand hygiene of health care providers with sufficient detail to understand infection risks and prioritize prevention strategies. Methods : This observational study was conducted in six healthcare facilities in Nigeria. In each, five women were observed from the onset of labour through to delivery of the placenta. Hand hygiene infection risk was estimated for all procedures requiring aseptic technique compared against adherence to proper hand hygiene protocol and potential recontamination events. Results : Hands were washed with soap and sterile gloves applied with no observed recontamination before only 3% of all observed procedures requiring aseptic technique. There was no significant difference in hygiene compliance between midwives and doctors nor facilities or states. Adherence to proper hygiene protocol was observed more in morning compared to afternoon and night shifts. Conclusions : This study highlights that hand hygiene remains a barrier to delivering high-quality and safe care in health facilities. Improving hygiene practices during labour and delivery will require strategies that extend beyond infrastructure provision.

Yael Velleman and colleagues argue for stronger integration between the water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) and maternal and newborn health sectors. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.