Lessons learned from conducting six multi-country mixed-methods effectiveness research studies on water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions in humanitarian response.

BACKGROUND: Provision of safe water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) to affected populations in humanitarian emergencies is necessary for dignity and communicable disease control. Additional evidence on WASH interventions is needed in humanitarian settings. Between 2008 and 2019, we completed six multi-country, mixed-methods effectiveness studies in humanitarian response on six different WASH interventions. In each evaluation, we conducted: key informant interviews; water point observations and water quality testing; household surveys with recipients, including survey and water quality testing; focus group discussions; and/or, secondary data analysis. The research questions were: "What is the effectiveness of [intervention] in reducing the risk of diarrhea/cholera transmission; and, what programmatic factors lead to higher effectiveness?" DISCUSSION: In all six multi-country, mixed-methods evaluations, policy-relevant outcomes were obtained. We found, in our individual research results, that: interventions could reduce the risk of disease in humanitarian contexts; this reduction of risk did not always occur, as there were large ranges in effectiveness; and, implementation factors were crucial to intervention effectiveness. When collaboratively reviewing our research process across evaluations, we found strategies for successfully conducting this research included: 1) working with partners to identify and evaluate programs; 2) rapidly obtaining approvals to deploy; and, 3) conducting research methodologies consistently. Personal connections, in-person communication, trust, and experience working together were key factors for success in identifying partners for evaluation. Successes in evaluation deployment occurred with flexibility, patience, commitment of adequate time, and understanding of processes; although we note access and security concerns in insecure contexts precluded deployment. Consistent and robust protocols, flexibility, and a consistent researcher on the ground in each context allowed for methodological consistency and high-quality results. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we have found multi-country, mixed-methods results to be one crucial piece of the WASH evidence base in humanitarian contexts. This is particularly because evaluations of reductions in risk from real-world programming are policy-relevant, and are directly used to improve programming. In future, we need to flexibly work with donors, agencies, institutions, responders, local governments, local responders, and beneficiaries to design safe and ethical research protocols to answer questions related to WASH interventions effectiveness in humanitarian response, and, improve WASH programming.

Can Social Motivators Improve Handwashing Behavior among Children? Evidence from a Cluster Randomized Trial of a School Hygiene Intervention in the Philippines.

This study reports the impact of the HiFive program, a 6-week handwashing campaign that targets social and emotional motivators to improve student handwashing in primary schools in the Philippines. We designed a clustered randomized trial to evaluate the impact of HiFive on student handwashing behavior, motivation, and access. Of the sample of 196 primary schools located in two districts, half were randomly assigned to receive the program in the 2017-2018 school year. Survey and observation data were collected 3 months after the conclusion of the campaign. In control schools, only 2.5% of students were observed washing their hands with soap and water, our primary outcome and 14.8% were observed washing their hands with at least water. HiFive led to a 3.7 percentage point (p.p.) increase (P < 0.01) in the rate of handwashing with soap and water and a 5.6 p.p. increase (P = 0.03) in handwashing with at least water after toilet use. HiFive also led to a 10.8 p.p. (P < 0.01) increase in the number of handwashing facilities stocked with soap. The program had limited impact on the motivators targeted by the program, suggesting that the small improvements in handwashing may have been driven by increases in the availability of soap. More research is needed to understand how interventions can effectively trigger social motivators to improve handwashing behavior among schoolchildren, and whether the effectiveness of these programs can be augmented with "nudge"-based interventions from the behavioral sciences.

Can child-focused sanitation and nutrition programming improve health practices and outcomes? Evidence from a randomised controlled trial in Kitui County, Kenya.

INTRODUCTION: In Kenya's Kitui County, 46% of children under 5 years are stunted. Sanitation and nutrition programmes have sought to reduce child undernutrition, though they are typically implemented separately. We evaluate the effectiveness of an integrated sanitation and nutrition (SanNut) intervention in improving caregiver sanitation and nutrition knowledge and behaviours. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomised controlled trial to evaluate the impact of the SanNut intervention on caregiver knowledge, sanitary and hygiene practices, sanitation outcomes and nutrition outcomes. The evaluation included caregivers of children under 5 years across 604 villages in Kitui County. 309 treatment villages were randomly assigned to receive both the SanNut intervention and the standard Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) intervention, while 295 control villages only received the CLTS intervention. 8 households with children under 5 years were randomly selected from each evaluation village to participate in the endline survey, for a total of 4322 households. RESULTS: SanNut led to modest improvements in sanitary knowledge and practices emphasised by the programme. Caregivers in treatment villages were 3.3 pp (+32%) more likely to mention lack of handwashing after handling child faeces as a potential cause of diarrhoea, and 4.9 pp (+7.8%) more likely to report safe disposal of child faeces than caregivers in control villages. Treatment households were 1.9 pp (+79%) more likely to have a stocked handwashing station and 2.9 pp (-16%) less likely to report incidences of child diarrhoea. However, SanNut appears to have had no impact on nutritional practices, such as breastfeeding, vitamin A supplementation or deworming. Non-child outcomes traditionally associated with CLTS, including latrine use and homestead sanitary conditions, were similar in treatment and control groups. CONCLUSION: Child-focused messaging can potentially be integrated into CLTS programming, though this integration was more successful for topics closer to CLTS objectives (sanitation practices, including limiting faecal contamination and handwashing) than for more disparate topics (nutritional practices). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR201803003159346) and American Economic Association registry for randomised controlled trials (AEARCTR-0002019).

Effectiveness of chlorine dispensers in emergencies: case study results from Haiti, Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Senegal.

Dispensers are a source-based water quality intervention with promising uptake results in development contexts. Dispenser programs include a tank of chlorine with a dosing valve that is installed next to a water source, a local Promoter who conducts community education and refills the Dispenser, and chlorine refills. In collaboration with response organizations, we assessed the effectiveness of Dispensers in four emergency situations. In the three initial and four sustained response phase evaluations, 70 Dispenser sites were visited, 2057 household surveys were conducted, and 1676 water samples were analyzed. Across the evaluations, reported Dispenser use ranged from 9 to 97%, confirmed Dispenser use (as measured by free chlorine residual) ranged from 5 to 87%, and effective use (as measured by improvement in household water quality to meet international standards) ranged from 0 to 81%. More effective Dispenser interventions installed Dispensers at point-sources, maintained a high-quality chlorine solution manufacturing and distribution chain, maintained Dispenser hardware, integrated Dispensers projects within larger water programs, remunerated Promoters, had experienced project staff, worked with local partners to implement the project, conducted ongoing monitoring, and had a project sustainability plan. Our results indicate that Dispensers can be, but are not always, an appropriate strategy to reduce the risk of waterborne diseases in emergencies.