Search

Low adoption and compliance levels for household water treatment and safe storage (HWTS) technologies have made it challenging for these systems to achieve measurable health benefits in the developing world. User compliance remains an inconsistently defined and poorly understood feature of HWTS programs. In this article, we develop a comprehensive approach to understanding HWTS compliance. First, our Safe Drinking Water Compliance Framework disaggregates and measures the components of compliance from initial adoption of the HWTS to exclusive consumption of treated water. We apply this framework to an ultraviolet (UV)-based safe water system in a cluster-randomized controlled trial in rural Mexico. Second, we evaluate a no-frills (or "Basic") variant of the program as well as an improved (or "Enhanced") variant, to test if subtle changes in the user interface of HWTS programs could improve compliance. Finally, we perform a full-cost analysis of both variants to assess their cost effectiveness (CE) in achieving compliance. We define "compliance" strictly as the habit of consuming safe water. We find that compliance was significantly higher in the groups where the UV program variants were rolled out than in the control groups. The Enhanced variant performed better immediately postintervention than the Basic, but compliance (and thus CE) degraded with time such that no effective difference remained between the two versions of the program.

Inconsistent use of household water treatment and safe storage (HWTS) systems reduces their potential health benefits. Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection is more convenient than some existing HWTS systems, but it does not provide post-treatment residual disinfectant, which could leave drinking water vulnerable to recontamination. In this paper, using as-treated analyses, we report on the field efficacy of a UV disinfection system at improving household drinking water quality in rural Mexico. We further assess the risk of post-treatment contamination from the UV system, and develop a process-based model to better understand household risk factors for recontamination. This study was part of a larger cluster-randomized stepped wedge trial, and the results complement previously published population-level results of the intervention on diarrheal prevalence and water quality. Based on the presence of Escherichia coli (proportion of households with ≥ 1 E. coli/100 mL), we estimated a risk difference of -28.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): -33.9%, -22.1%) when comparing intervention to control households; -38.6% (CI: -48.9%, -28.2%) when comparing post- and pre-intervention results; and -37.1% (CI: -45.2%, -28.9%) when comparing UV disinfected water to alternatives within the household. We found substantial increases in post-treatment E. coli contamination when comparing samples from the UV system effluent (5.0%) to samples taken from the storage container (21.1%) and drinking glasses (26.0%). We found that improved household infrastructure, additional extractions from the storage container, additional time from when the storage container was filled, and increased experience of the UV system operator were associated with reductions in post-treatment contamination. Our results suggest that the UV system is efficacious at improving household water quality when used as intended. Promoting safe storage habits is essential for an effective UV system dissemination. The drinking glass appears to represent a small but significant source of recontamination that is likely to impact all HWTS systems., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Current guidelines recommend the use of Escherichia coli (EC) or thermotolerant ("fecal") coliforms (FC) as indicators of fecal contamination in drinking water. Despite their broad use as measures of water quality, there remains limited evidence for an association between EC or FC and diarrheal illness: a previous review found no evidence for a link between diarrhea and these indicators in household drinking water., Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to update the results of the previous review with newly available evidence, to explore differences between EC and FC indicators, and to assess the quality of available evidence., Methods: We searched major databases using broad terms for household water quality and diarrhea. We extracted study characteristics and relative risks (RR) from relevant studies. We pooled RRs using random effects models with inverse variance weighting, and used standard methods to evaluate heterogeneity and publication bias., Results: We identified 20 relevant studies; 14 studies provided extractable results for meta-analysis. When combining all studies, we found no association between EC or FC and diarrhea (RR 1.26 [95% CI: 0.98, 1.63]). When analyzing EC and FC separately, we found evidence for an association between diarrhea and EC (RR: 1.54 [95% CI: 1.37, 1.74]) but not FC (RR: 1.07 [95% CI: 0.79, 1.45]). Across all studies, we identified several elements of study design and reporting (e.g., timing of outcome and exposure measurement, accounting for correlated outcomes) that could be improved upon in future studies that evaluate the association between drinking water contamination and health., Conclusions: Our findings, based on a review of the published literature, suggest that these two coliform groups have different associations with diarrhea in household drinking water. Our results support the use of EC as a fecal indicator in household drinking water.

Background: Water distribution systems are vulnerable to performance deficiencies that can cause (re)contamination of treated water and plausibly lead to increased risk of gastrointestinal illness (GII) in consumers., Objectives: It is well established that large system disruptions in piped water networks can cause GII outbreaks. We hypothesized that routine network problems can also contribute to background levels of waterborne illness and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of distribution system deficiencies on endemic GII., Methods: We reviewed published studies that compared direct tap water consumption to consumption of tap water re-treated at the point of use (POU) and studies of specific system deficiencies such as breach of physical or hydraulic pipe integrity and lack of disinfectant residual., Results: In settings with network malfunction, consumers of tap water versus POU-treated water had increased GII [incidence density ratio (IDR) = 1.34; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.79]. The subset of nonblinded studies showed a significant association between GII and tap water versus POU-treated water consumption (IDR = 1.52; 95% CI: 1.05, 2.20), but there was no association based on studies that blinded participants to their POU water treatment status (IDR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.08). Among studies focusing on specific network deficiencies, GII was associated with temporary water outages (relative risk = 3.26; 95% CI: 1.48, 7.19) as well as chronic outages in intermittently operated distribution systems (odds ratio = 1.61; 95% CI: 1.26, 2.07)., Conclusions: Tap water consumption is associated with GII in malfunctioning distribution networks. System deficiencies such as water outages also are associated with increased GII, suggesting a potential health risk for consumers served by piped water networks.

Inconsistent use of household water treatment and safe storage (HWTS) systems reduces their potential health benefits. Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection is more convenient than some existing HWTS systems, but it does not provide post-treatment residual disinfectant, which could leave drinking water vulnerable to recontamination. In this paper, using as-treated analyses, we report on the field efficacy of a UV disinfection system at improving household drinking water quality in rural Mexico. We further assess the risk of post-treatment contamination from the UV system, and develop a process-based model to better understand household risk factors for recontamination. This study was part of a larger cluster-randomized stepped wedge trial, and the results complement previously published population-level results of the intervention on diarrheal prevalence and water quality. Based on the presence of Escherichia coli (proportion of households with ≥ 1 E. coli/100 mL), we estimated a risk difference of -28.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): -33.9%, -22.1%) when comparing intervention to control households; -38.6% (CI: -48.9%, -28.2%) when comparing post- and pre-intervention results; and -37.1% (CI: -45.2%, -28.9%) when comparing UV disinfected water to alternatives within the household. We found substantial increases in post-treatment E. coli contamination when comparing samples from the UV system effluent (5.0%) to samples taken from the storage container (21.1%) and drinking glasses (26.0%). We found that improved household infrastructure, additional extractions from the storage container, additional time from when the storage container was filled, and increased experience of the UV system operator were associated with reductions in post-treatment contamination. Our results suggest that the UV system is efficacious at improving household water quality when used as intended. Promoting safe storage habits is essential for an effective UV system dissemination. The drinking glass appears to represent a small but significant source of recontamination that is likely to impact all HWTS systems.

Complier average causal effects (CACE) estimate the impact of an intervention among treatment compliers in randomized trials. Methods used to estimate CACE have been outlined for parallel-arm trials (e.g., using an instrumental variables (IV) estimator) but not for other randomized study designs. Here, we propose a method for estimating CACE in randomized stepped wedge trials, where experimental units cross over from control conditions to intervention conditions in a randomized sequence. We illustrate the approach with a cluster-randomized drinking water trial conducted in rural Mexico from 2009 to 2011. Additionally, we evaluated the plausibility of assumptions required to estimate CACE using the IV approach, which are testable in stepped wedge trials but not in parallel-arm trials. We observed small increases in the magnitude of CACE risk differences compared with intention-to-treat estimates for drinking water contamination (risk difference (RD) = -22% (95% confidence interval (CI): -33, -11) vs. RD = -19% (95% CI: -26, -12)) and diarrhea (RD = -0.8% (95% CI: -2.1, 0.4) vs. RD = -0.1% (95% CI: -1.1, 0.9)). Assumptions required for IV analysis were probably violated. Stepped wedge trials allow investigators to estimate CACE with an approach that avoids the stronger assumptions required for CACE estimation in parallel-arm trials. Inclusion of CACE estimates in stepped wedge trials with imperfect compliance could enhance reporting and interpretation of the results of such trials.