Search

Undernutrition is more prevalent among children living in unsanitary environments with inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH). Despite good evidence for the effect of WASH on multiple infectious diseases, evidence for the effect of WASH interventions on childhood undernutrition is less well established, particularly for acute malnutrition. To assess the effectiveness of WASH interventions in preventing and treating acute childhood malnutrition, we performed electronic searches to identify relevant studies published between 1 January 2000 and 13 May 2019. We included studies assessing the effect of WASH on prevention and treatment of acute malnutrition in children under 5 years of age. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. We included 26 articles of 599 identified references with a total of 43,083 participants. Twenty‐five studies reported on the effect of WASH on prevention, and two studies reported its effect on treatment of acute malnutrition. Current evidence does not show consistent associations of WASH conditions and interventions with prevention of acute malnutrition or with the improvement of its treatment outcomes. Only two high‐quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated that improved water quality during severe acute malnutrition treatment improved recovery outcomes but did not prevent relapse. Many of the interventions consisted of a package of WASH services, making impossible to attribute the effect to one specific component. This highlights the need for high‐quality, rigorous intervention studies assessing the effects of WASH interventions specifically designed to prevent acute malnutrition or improve its treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objectives of most treatment programs for severe acute malnutrition (SAM) in children focus on initial recovery only, leaving post‐discharge outcomes, such as relapse, poorly understood and undefined. This study aimed to systematically review current literature and conduct secondary data analyses of studies that captured relapse rates, up to 18‐month post‐discharge, in children following recovery from SAM treatment. The literature search (including PubMed and Google Scholar) built upon two recent reviews to identify a variety of up‐to‐date published studies and grey literature. This search yielded 26 articles and programme reports that provided information on relapse. The proportion of children who relapsed after SAM treatment varied greatly from 0% to 37% across varying lengths of time following discharge. The lack of a standard definition of relapse limited comparability even among the few studies that have quantified post‐discharge relapse. Inconsistent treatment protocols and poor adherence to protocols likely add to the wide range of relapse reported. Secondary analysis of a database from Malawi found no significant association between potential individual risk factors at admission and discharge, except being an orphan, which resulted in five times greater odds of relapse at 6 months post‐discharge (95% CI [1.7, 12.4], P = 0.003). The development of a standard definition of relapse is needed for programme implementers and researchers. This will allow for assessment of programme quality regarding sustained recovery and better understanding of the contribution of relapse to local and global burden of SAM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]