Search

BackgroundAssessments of disease burden are important to inform national, regional, and global strategies and to guide investment. We aimed to estimate the drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH)-attributable burden of disease for diarrhoea, acute respiratory infections, undernutrition, and soil-transmitted helminthiasis, using the WASH service levels used to monitor the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as counterfactual minimum risk-exposure levels.MethodsWe assessed the WASH-attributable disease burden of the four health outcomes overall and disaggregated by region, age, and sex for the year 2019. We calculated WASH-attributable fractions of diarrhoea and acute respiratory infections by country using modelled WASH exposures and exposure-response relationships from two updated meta-analyses. We used the WHO and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene public database to estimate population exposure to different WASH service levels. WASH-attributable undernutrition was estimated by combining the population attributable fractions (PAF) of diarrhoea caused by unsafe WASH and the PAF of undernutrition caused by diarrhoea. Soil-transmitted helminthiasis was fully attributed to unsafe WASH.FindingsWe estimate that 1·4 (95% CI 1·3-1·5) million deaths and 74 (68-80) million disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) could have been prevented by safe WASH in 2019 across the four designated outcomes, representing 2·5% of global deaths and 2·9% of global DALYs from all causes. The proportion of diarrhoea that is attributable to unsafe WASH is 0·69 (0·65-0·72), 0·14 (0·13-0·17) for acute respiratory infections, and 0·10 (0·09-0·10) for undernutrition, and we assume that the entire disease burden from soil-transmitted helminthiasis was attributable to unsafe WASH.InterpretationWASH-attributable burden of disease estimates based on the levels of service established under the SDG framework show that progress towards the internationally agreed goal of safely managed WASH services for all would yield major public-health returns.FundingWHO and Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office.

BackgroundEstimates of the effectiveness of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions that provide high levels of service on childhood diarrhoea are scarce. We aimed to provide up-to-date estimates on the burden of disease attributable to WASH and on the effects of different types of WASH interventions on childhood diarrhoea in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we updated previous reviews following their search strategy by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and BIOSIS Citation Index for studies of basic WASH interventions and of WASH interventions providing a high level of service, published between Jan 1, 2016, and May 25, 2021. We included randomised and non-randomised controlled trials conducted at household or community level that matched exposure categories of the so-called service ladder approach of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) for WASH. Two reviewers independently extracted study-level data and assessed risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and certainty of evidence using a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We analysed extracted relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs using random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42016043164.Findings19 837 records were identified from the search, of which 124 studies were included, providing 83 water (62 616 children), 20 sanitation (40 799 children), and 41 hygiene (98 416 children) comparisons. Compared with untreated water from an unimproved source, risk of diarrhoea was reduced by up to 50% with water treated at point of use (POU): filtration (n=23 studies; RR 0·50 [95% CI 0·41-0·60]), solar treatment (n=13; 0·63 [0·50-0·80]), and chlorination (n=25; 0·66 [0·56-0·77]). Compared with an unimproved source, provision of an improved drinking water supply on premises with higher water quality reduced diarrhoea risk by 52% (n=2; 0·48 [0·26-0·87]). Overall, sanitation interventions reduced diarrhoea risk by 24% (0·76 [0·61-0·94]). Compared with unimproved sanitation, providing sewer connection reduced diarrhoea risk by 47% (n=5; 0·53 [0·30-0·93]). Promotion of handwashing with soap reduced diarrhoea risk by 30% (0·70 [0·64-0·76]).InterpretationWASH interventions reduced risk of diarrhoea in children in LMICs. Interventions supplying either water filtered at POU, higher water quality from an improved source on premises, or basic sanitation services with sewer connection were associated with increased reductions. Our results support higher service levels called for under SDG 6. Notably, no studies evaluated interventions that delivered access to safely managed WASH services, the level of service to which universal coverage by 2030 is committed under the SDG.FundingWHO, Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

BackgroundThree 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 bodyHere 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.ConclusionThese 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.

ObjectiveTo estimate the burden of diarrhoeal diseases from exposure to inadequate water, sanitation and hand hygiene in low- and middle-income settings and provide an overview of the impact on other diseases.MethodsFor estimating the impact of water, sanitation and hygiene on diarrhoea, we selected exposure levels with both sufficient global exposure data and a matching exposure-risk relationship. Global exposure data were estimated for the year 2012, and risk estimates were taken from the most recent systematic analyses. We estimated attributable deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) by country, age and sex for inadequate water, sanitation and hand hygiene separately, and as a cluster of risk factors. Uncertainty estimates were computed on the basis of uncertainty surrounding exposure estimates and relative risks.ResultsIn 2012, 502,000 diarrhoea deaths were estimated to be caused by inadequate drinking water and 280,000 deaths by inadequate sanitation. The most likely estimate of disease burden from inadequate hand hygiene amounts to 297,000 deaths. In total, 842,000 diarrhoea deaths are estimated to be caused by this cluster of risk factors, which amounts to 1.5% of the total disease burden and 58% of diarrhoeal diseases. In children under 5 years old, 361,000 deaths could be prevented, representing 5.5% of deaths in that age group.ConclusionsThis estimate confirms the importance of improving water and sanitation in low- and middle-income settings for the prevention of diarrhoeal disease burden. It also underscores the need for better data on exposure and risk reductions that can be achieved with provision of reliable piped water, community sewage with treatment and hand hygiene.

ObjectiveTo assess the impact of inadequate water and sanitation on diarrhoeal disease in low- and middle-income settings.MethodsThe search strategy used Cochrane Library, MEDLINE & PubMed, Global Health, Embase and BIOSIS supplemented by screening of reference lists from previously published systematic reviews, to identify studies reporting on interventions examining the effect of drinking water and sanitation improvements in low- and middle-income settings published between 1970 and May 2013. Studies including randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials with control group, observational studies using matching techniques and observational studies with a control group where the intervention was well defined were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Ottawa-Newcastle scale. Study results were combined using meta-analysis and meta-regression to derive overall and intervention-specific risk estimates.ResultsOf 6819 records identified for drinking water, 61 studies met the inclusion criteria, and of 12,515 records identified for sanitation, 11 studies were included. Overall, improvements in drinking water and sanitation were associated with decreased risks of diarrhoea. Specific improvements, such as the use of water filters, provision of high-quality piped water and sewer connections, were associated with greater reductions in diarrhoea compared with other interventions.ConclusionsThe results show that inadequate water and sanitation are associated with considerable risks of diarrhoeal disease and that there are notable differences in illness reduction according to the type of improved water and sanitation implemented.

ObjectiveTo assess the impact of inadequate water and sanitation on diarrhoeal disease in low- and middle-income settings.MethodsThe search strategy used Cochrane Library, MEDLINE & PubMed, Global Health, Embase and BIOSIS supplemented by screening of reference lists from previously published systematic reviews, to identify studies reporting on interventions examining the effect of drinking water and sanitation improvements in low- and middle-income settings published between 1970 and May 2013. Studies including randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials with control group, observational studies using matching techniques and observational studies with a control group where the intervention was well defined were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Ottawa-Newcastle scale. Study results were combined using meta-analysis and meta-regression to derive overall and intervention-specific risk estimates.ResultsOf 6819 records identified for drinking water, 61 studies met the inclusion criteria, and of 12,515 records identified for sanitation, 11 studies were included. Overall, improvements in drinking water and sanitation were associated with decreased risks of diarrhoea. Specific improvements, such as the use of water filters, provision of high-quality piped water and sewer connections, were associated with greater reductions in diarrhoea compared with other interventions.ConclusionsThe results show that inadequate water and sanitation are associated with considerable risks of diarrhoeal disease and that there are notable differences in illness reduction according to the type of improved water and sanitation implemented.

Abstract Background Continuous exposure to many chemicals, including through air, water, food, or other media and products results in health impacts which have been well assessed, however little is known about the total disease burden related to chemicals. This is important to know for overall policy actions and priorities. In this article the known burden related to selected chemicals or their mixtures, main data gaps, and the link to public health policy are reviewed. Methods A systematic review of the literature for global burden of disease estimates from chemicals was conducted. Global disease due to chemicals was estimated using standard methodology of the Global Burden of Disease. Results In total, 4.9 million deaths (8.3% of total) and 86 million Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) (5.7% of total) were attributable to environmental exposure and management of selected chemicals in 2004. The largest contributors include indoor smoke from solid fuel use, outdoor air pollution and second-hand smoke, with 2.0, 1.2 and 0.6 million deaths annually. These are followed by occupational particulates, chemicals involved in acute poisonings, and pesticides involved in self-poisonings, with 375,000, 240,000 and 186,000 annual deaths, respectively. Conclusions The known burden due to chemicals is considerable. This information supports decision-making in programmes having a role to play in reducing human exposure to toxic chemicals. These figures present only a number of chemicals for which data are available, therefore, they are more likely an underestimate of the actual burden. Chemicals with known health effects, such as dioxins, cadmium, mercury or chronic exposure to pesticides could not be included in this article due to incomplete data and information. Effective public health interventions are known to manage chemicals and limit their public health impacts and should be implemented at national and international levels.

Background: Limited data have been available on the global practice of handwashing with soap (HWWS). To better appreciate global HWWS frequency, which plays a role in disease transmission, our objectives were to: (i) quantify the presence of designated handwashing facilities; (ii) assess the association between handwashing facility presence and observed HWWS; and (iii) derive country, regional and global HWWS estimates after potential faecal contact.Methods: First, using data from national surveys, we applied multilevel linear modelling to estimate national handwashing facility presence. Second, using multilevel Poisson modelling on datasets including both handwashing facility presence and observed HWWS after potential faecal contact, we estimated HWWS prevalence conditional on handwashing facility presence by region. For high-income countries, we used meta-analysis to pool handwashing prevalence of studies identified through a systematic review. Third, from the modelled handwashing facility presence and estimated HWWS prevalence conditional on the presence of a handwashing facility, we estimated handwashing practice at country, regional and global levels.Results: First, approximately one in four persons did not have a designated handwashing facility in 2015, based on 115 data points for 77 countries. Second the prevalence ratio between HWWS when a designated facility was present compared with when it was absent was 1.99 (1.66, 2.39) P <0.001 for low- and middle-income countries, based on nine datasets. Third, we estimate that in 2015, 26.2% (23.1%, 29.6%) of potential faecal contacts were followed by HWWS.Conclusions: Many people lack a designated handwashing facility, but even among those with access, HWWS is poorly practised. People with access to designated handwashing facilities are about twice as likely to wash their hands with soap after potential faecal contact as people who lack a facility. Estimates are based on limited data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the global health threats of climate change, air pollution and noncommunicable diseases. Topics covered include the factors that contribute to climate change, such as increasing use of fossil fuels, the link between the sources of air pollution and climate change and statistics from the International Panel on Climate Change. Also discussed are the opportunities for reducing air pollution and improving health.

Background: Health gains that environmental interventions could achieve are main questions when choosing environmental health action to prevent disease. The World Health Organization has recently released profiles of environmental burden of disease for 192 countries.Methods: These country profiles provide an estimate of the health impacts from the three major risk factors 'unsafe water, sanitation & hygiene', 'indoor air pollution from solid fuel use' and 'outdoor air pollution'. The profiles also provide an estimate of preventable health impacts by the environment as a whole. While the estimates for the three risk factors are based on country exposures, the estimates of health gains for total environmental improvements are based on a review of the literature supplemented by expert opinion and combined with country health statistics.Results: Between 13% and 37% of the countries' disease burden could be prevented by environmental improvements, resulting globally in about 13 million deaths per year. It is estimated that about four million of these could be prevented by improving water, sanitation and hygiene, and indoor and outdoor air alone. The number of environmental DALYs per 1000 capita per year ranges between 14 and 316 according to the country. An analysis by disease group points to main preventions opportunities for each country.Conclusion: Notwithstanding the uncertainties in their calculation, these estimates provide an overview of opportunities for prevention through healthier environments. The estimates show that for similar national incomes, the environmental burden of disease can typically vary by a factor five. This analysis also shows that safer water, sanitation and hygiene, and safer fuels for cooking could significantly reduce child mortality, namely by more than 25% in 20 of the lowest income countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To estimate the global prevalence of handwashing with soap and derive a pooled estimate of the effect of hygiene on diarrhoeal diseases, based on a systematic search of the literature., Methods: Studies with data on observed rates of handwashing with soap published between 1990 and August 2013 were identified from a systematic search of PubMed, Embase and ISI Web of Knowledge. A separate search was conducted for studies on the effect of hygiene on diarrhoeal disease that included randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials with control group, observational studies using matching techniques and observational studies with a control group where the intervention was well defined. The search used Cochrane Library, Global Health, BIOSIS, PubMed, and Embase databases supplemented with reference lists from previously published systematic reviews to identify studies published between 1970 and August 2013. Results were combined using multilevel modelling for handwashing prevalence and meta-regression for risk estimates., Results: From the 42 studies reporting handwashing prevalence we estimate that approximately 19% of the world population washes hands with soap after contact with excreta (i.e. use of a sanitation facility or contact with children's excreta). Meta-regression of risk estimates suggests that handwashing reduces the risk of diarrhoeal disease by 40% (risk ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.53-0.68); however, when we included an adjustment for unblinded studies, the effect estimate was reduced to 23% (risk ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.32-1.86)., Conclusions: Our results show that handwashing after contact with excreta is poorly practiced globally, despite the likely positive health benefits., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Estimating the burden of disease attributable to long-term exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in ambient air requires knowledge of both the shape and magnitude of the relative risk (RR) function. However, adequate direct evidence to identify the shape of the mortality RR functions at the high ambient concentrations observed in many places in the world is lacking., Objective: We developed RR functions over the entire global exposure range for causes of mortality in adults: ischemic heart disease (IHD), cerebrovascular disease (stroke), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and lung cancer (LC). We also developed RR functions for the incidence of acute lower respiratory infection (ALRI) that can be used to estimate mortality and lost-years of healthy life in children < 5 years of age., Methods: We fit an integrated exposure-response (IER) model by integrating available RR information from studies of ambient air pollution (AAP), second hand tobacco smoke, household solid cooking fuel, and active smoking (AS). AS exposures were converted to estimated annual PM2.5 exposure equivalents using inhaled doses of particle mass. We derived population attributable fractions (PAFs) for every country based on estimated worldwide ambient PM2.5 concentrations., Results: The IER model was a superior predictor of RR compared with seven other forms previously used in burden assessments. The percent PAF attributable to AAP exposure varied among countries from 2 to 41 for IHD, 1 to 43 for stroke, < 1 to 21 for COPD, < 1 to 25 for LC, and < 1 to 38 for ALRI., Conclusions: We developed a fine particulate mass-based RR model that covered the global range of exposure by integrating RR information from different combustion types that generate emissions of particulate matter. The model can be updated as new RR information becomes available.

The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) concept has been used by the World Health Organization (WHO) for its reporting on health information for nearly 10 years. The GBD approach results in a single summary measure of morbidity, disability, and mortality, the so-called disability-adjusted life year (DALY). To ensure transparency and objectivity in the derivation of health information, WHO has been urged to use reference groups of external experts to estimate burden of disease. Under the leadership and coordination of WHO, expert groups have been appraising and abstracting burden of disease information. Examples include the Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group (CHERG), the Malaria Monitoring and Evaluation Reference Group (MERG), and the recently established Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group (FERG). The structure and functioning of and lessons learnt by these groups are described in this paper. External WHO expert groups have provided independent scientific health information while operating under considerable differences in structure and functioning. Although it is not appropriate to devise a single "best practice" model, the common thread described by all groups is the necessity of WHO's leadership and coordination to ensure the provision and dissemination of health information that is to be globally accepted and valued.

There is very little systematically collected evidence on the overall contribution of environmental risk factors to the global burden of disease. The World Health Organization (WHO) recently completed a comprehensive, systematic, and transparent estimate of the disease burden attributable to the environment highlighting the full potential for environmental interventions to improve human health. This report is the result of a systematic literature review on environmental risks completed by a survey of expert opinion using a variant of the Delphi method. More than 100 experts provided quantitative estimates on the fractions of 85 diseases attributable to the environment. They were asked to consider only the contributions of the "reasonably modifiable environment"-that is, the part of environment that can plausibly be changed by existing interventions. The report estimates that 24% of the global burden of disease was due to environmental risk factors. Environmental factors were judged to play a role in 85 of the 102 diseases taken into account. Major diseases were, for example, diarrheal diseases with fractions attributable to the environment of 94%, lower respiratory infections with 41%, malaria with 42%, and unintentional injuries with 42%. The evidence shows that a large proportion of this "environmental disease burden" could be averted by existing cost-effective interventions such as clean water, clean air, and basic safety measures. In children, 34% of the disease burden is attributable to the environment, and much of this burden is in developing countries.

Objective: The World Health Organization is the agency responsible for reporting the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) indicator "percentage of population using solid fuels." In this article, we present the results of a comprehensive assessment of solid fuel use, conducted in 2005, and discuss the implications of our findings in the context of achieving the MDGs., Methods: For 93 countries, solid fuel use data were compiled from recent national censuses or household surveys. For the 36 countries where no data were available, the indicator was modeled. For 52 upper-middle or high-income countries, the indicator was assumed to be < 5%., Results: According to our assessment, 52% of the world's population uses solid fuels. This percentage varies widely between countries and regions, ranging from 77%, 74%, and 74% in Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Western Pacific Region, respectively, to 36% in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, 16% in Latin America and the Caribbean and in Central and Eastern Europe. In most industrialized countries, solid fuel use falls to the < 5% mark., Discussion: Although the "percentage of population using solid fuels" is classified as an indicator to measure progress towards MDG 7, reliance on traditional household energy practices has distinct implications for most of the MDGs, notably MDGs 4 and 5. There is an urgent need for development agendas to recognize the fundamental role that household energy plays in improving child and maternal health and fostering economic and social development.