Estimating the cost of achieving basic water, sanitation, hygiene, and waste management services in public health-care facilities in the 46 UN designated least-developed countries: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: An alarming number of public health-care facilities in low-income and middle-income countries lack basic water, sanitation, hygiene (WASH), and waste management services. This study estimates the costs of achieving full coverage of basic WASH and waste services in existing public health facilities in the 46 UN designated least-developed countries (LDCs). METHODS: In this modelling study, in-need facilities were quantified by combining published counts of public facilities with estimated basic WASH and waste service coverage. Country-specific per-facility capital and recurrent costs to deliver basic services were collected via survey of country WASH experts and officials between Sept 24 and Dec 24, 2020. Baseline cost estimates were modelled and discounted by 5% per year. Key assumptions were adjusted to produce lower and upper estimates, including adjusting the discount rate to 8% and 3% per year, respectively. FINDINGS: An estimated US$6·5 billion to $9·6 billion from 2021 to 2030 is needed to achieve full coverage of basic WASH and waste services in public health facilities in LDCs. Capital costs are $2·9 billion to $4·8 billion and recurrent costs are $3·6 billion to $4·8 billion over this time period. A mean of $0·24-0·40 per capita in capital investment is needed each year, and annual operations and maintenance costs are expected to increase from $0·10 in 2021 to $0·39-0·60 in 2030. Waste management accounts for the greatest share of costs, requiring $3·7 billion (46·6% of the total) in the baseline estimates, followed by $1·8 billion (23·1%) for sanitation, $1·5 billion (19·5%) for water, and $845 million (10·7%) for hygiene. Needs are greatest for non-hospital facilities ($7·4 billion [94%] of $7·9 billion) and for facilities in rural areas ($5·3 billion [68%]). INTERPRETATION: Investment will need to increase to reach full coverage of basic WASH and waste services in public health facilities. Financial needs are modest compared with current overall health and WASH spending, and better service coverage will yield substantial health benefits. To sustain services and prevent degradation and early replacement, countries will need to routinely budget for operations and maintenance of WASH and waste management assets. FUNDING: WHO (including underlying grants from the governments of Japan, the Netherlands, and the UK), World Bank (including an underlying grant from the Global Water Security and Sanitation Partnership), and UNICEF. TRANSLATIONS: For the Arabic, French and Portuguese translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Costs of hand hygiene for all in household settings: estimating the price tag for the 46 least developed countries.

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.

Monitoring Drinking Water Quality in Nationally Representative Household Surveys in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Cross-Sectional Analysis of 27 Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys 2014-2020.

BACKGROUND: The 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set an ambitious new benchmark for safely managed drinking water services (SMDWs), but many countries lack national data on the availability and quality of drinking water. OBJECTIVES: We quantified the availability and microbiological quality of drinking water, monitored SMDWs, and examined risk factors for Escherichia coli (E. coli) contamination in 27 low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: A new water quality module for household surveys was implemented in 27 Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys. Teams used portable equipment to measure E. coli at the point of collection (PoC, n=61,170) and at the point of use (PoU, n=64,900) and asked respondents about the availability and accessibility of drinking water. Households were classified as having SMDW services if they used an improved water source that was free of E. coli contamination at PoC, accessible on premises, and available when needed. Compliance with individual SMDW criteria was also assessed. Modified Poisson regression was used to explore household and community risk factors for E. coli contamination. RESULTS: E. coli was commonly detected at the PoC (range 16-90%) and was more likely at the PoU (range 19-99%). On average, 84% of households used an improved drinking water source, and 31% met all of the SMDW criteria. E. coli contamination was the primary reason SMDW criteria were not met (15 of 27 countries). The prevalence of E. coli in PoC samples was lower among households using improved water sources [risk ratio (RR)=0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64, 0.85] but not for households with water accessible on premises (RR=0.99; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.05) or available when needed (RR=0.95; 95% CI: 0.88, 1.02). E. coli contamination of PoU samples was less common for households in the richest vs. poorest wealth quintile (RR=0.70; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.88) and in communities with high (>75%) improved sanitation coverage (RR=0.94; 95% CI: 0.90, 0.97). Livestock ownership (RR=1.08; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.13), rural vs. urban residence (RR=1.10; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.16), and wet vs. dry season sampling (RR=1.07; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.15) were positively associated with contamination at the PoU. DISCUSSION: Cross-sectional water quality data can be collected in household surveys and can be used to assess inequalities in service levels, to track the SDG indicator of SMDWs, and to examine risk factors for contamination. There is an urgent need for better risk management to reduce widespread exposure to fecal contamination through drinking water services in LMICs. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP8459.

Safely Managed On-Site Sanitation: A National Assessment of Sanitation Services and Potential Fecal Exposure in Indonesia.

Sustainable Development Goal target 6.2 calls for universal access to adequate and equitable sanitation, setting a more ambitious standard for 'safely managed sanitation services'. On-site sanitation systems (e.g., septic tanks) are widely used in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, the lack of indicators for assessing fecal exposure risks presents a barrier to monitoring safely managed services. Furthermore, geographic diversity and frequency of disasters require a more nuanced approach to risk-informed decision-making. Taking Indonesia as an example, the purpose of this paper is to provide insights into current status and practices for on-site sanitation services in the contexts of LMICs. Using a dataset from a national socio-economic survey (n = 295,155) coupled with village census (n = 83,931), we assessed (1) household sanitation practices across Indonesia stratified by city-level population density and meteorological factors, (2) factors associated with septic tank emptying practice, and (3) inequalities in potential fecal exposure as measured by population density and WASH access by wealth quintile. We found a high reliance on on-site sanitation facilities (80.0%), almost half of which are assumed to be 'uncontained' septic tanks and one in ten facilities discharging untreated waste directly into the environment. The most densely populated areas had the highest rates of septic tank emptying, though emptying rates were just 17.0%, while in the lowest population density group, emptying was rarely reported. Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated an association between flooding and drought occurrence and septic tank emptying practice. Higher groundwater usage for drinking among poorer households suggests unsafe sanitation may disproportionally affect the poor. Our study underscores the urgent need to strengthen the monitoring of on-site sanitation in LMICs by developing contextualized standards. Furthermore, the inequalities in potential fecal exposure require greater attention and tailored support mechanisms to ensure the poorest gain access to safely managed sanitation services.

Handwashing with soap after potential faecal contact: global, regional and country estimates.

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.

Optimizing household survey methods to monitor the Sustainable Development Goals targets 6.1 and 6.2 on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene: A mixed-methods field-test in Belize.

BACKGROUND: The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) require household survey programmes such as the UNICEF-supported Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) to enhance data collection to cover new indicators. This study aims to evaluated methods for assessing water quality, water availability, emptying of sanitation facilities, menstrual hygiene management and the acceptability of water quality testing in households which are key to monitoring SDG targets 6.1 and 6.2 on drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) and emerging issues. METHODS: As part of a MICS field test, we interviewed 429 households and 267 women age 15-49 in Stann Creek, Belize in a split-sample experiment. In a concurrent qualitative component, we conducted focus groups with interviewers and cognitive interviews with respondents during and immediately following questionnaire administration in the field to explore their question comprehension and response processes. FINDINGS: About 88% of respondents agreed to water quality testing but also desired test results, given the potential implications for their own health. Escherichia coli was present in 36% of drinking water collected at the source, and in 47% of samples consumed in the household. Both questions on water availability necessitated probing by interviewers. About one quarter of households reported emptying of pit latrines and septic tanks, though one-quarter could not provide an answer to the question. Asking questions on menstrual hygiene was acceptable to respondents, but required some clarification and probing. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of Belize, this study confirmed the feasibility of collecting information on the availability and quality of drinking water, emptying of sanitation facilities and menstrual hygiene in a multi-purpose household survey, indicating specific areas to improve question formulation and field protocols. Improvements have been incorporated into the latest round of MICS surveys which will be a major source of national data for monitoring of SDG targets for drinking water, sanitation and hygiene and emerging issues for WASH sector programming.

Monitoring drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene in non-household settings: Priorities for policy and practice.

Inadequate drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene (WaSH) in non-household settings, such as schools, health care facilities, and workplaces impacts the health, education, welfare, and productivity of populations, particularly in low and middle-income countries. There is limited knowledge on the status of WaSH in such settings. To address this gap, we reviewed international standards, international and national actors, and monitoring initiatives; developed the first typology of non-household settings; and assessed the viability of monitoring. Based on setting characteristics, non-household settings include six types: schools, health care facilities, workplaces, temporary use settings, mass gatherings, and dislocated populations. To-date national governments and international actors have focused monitoring of non-household settings on schools and health care facilities with comparatively little attention given to other settings such as workplaces and markets. Nationally representative facility surveys and national management information systems are the primary monitoring mechanisms. Data suggest that WaSH coverage is generally poor and often lower than in corresponding household settings. Definitions, indicators, and data sources are underdeveloped and not always comparable between countries. While not all countries monitor non-household settings, examples are available from countries on most continents suggesting that systematic monitoring is achievable. Monitoring WaSH in schools and health care facilities is most viable. Monitoring WaSH in other non-household settings would be viable with: technical support from local and national actors in addition to international organizations such as WHO and UNICEF; national prioritization through policy and financing; and including WaSH indicators into monitoring initiatives to improve cost-effectiveness. International consultations on targets and indicators for global monitoring of WaSH post-2015 identified non-household settings as a priority. National and international monitoring systems will be important to better understand status, trends, to identify priorities and target resources accordingly, and to improve accountability for progressive improvements in WaSH in non-household settings.

Global assessment of exposure to faecal contamination through drinking water based on a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate exposure to faecal contamination through drinking water as indicated by levels of Escherichia coli (E. coli) or thermotolerant coliform (TTC) in water sources. METHODS: We estimated coverage of different types of drinking water source based on household surveys and censuses using multilevel modelling. Coverage data were combined with water quality studies that assessed E. coli or TTC including those identified by a systematic review (n = 345). Predictive models for the presence and level of contamination of drinking water sources were developed using random effects logistic regression and selected covariates. We assessed sensitivity of estimated exposure to study quality, indicator bacteria and separately considered nationally randomised surveys. RESULTS: We estimate that 1.8 billion people globally use a source of drinking water which suffers from faecal contamination, of these 1.1 billion drink water that is of at least 'moderate' risk (>10 E. coli or TTC per 100 ml). Data from nationally randomised studies suggest that 10% of improved sources may be 'high' risk, containing at least 100 E. coli or TTC per 100 ml. Drinking water is found to be more often contaminated in rural areas (41%, CI: 31%-51%) than in urban areas (12%, CI: 8-18%), and contamination is most prevalent in Africa (53%, CI: 42%-63%) and South-East Asia (35%, CI: 24%-45%). Estimates were not sensitive to the exclusion of low quality studies or restriction to studies reporting E. coli. CONCLUSIONS: Microbial contamination is widespread and affects all water source types, including piped supplies. Global burden of disease estimates may have substantially understated the disease burden associated with inadequate water services.

Fecal contamination of drinking-water in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Access to safe drinking-water is a fundamental requirement for good health and is also a human right. Global access to safe drinking-water is monitored by WHO and UNICEF using as an indicator "use of an improved source," which does not account for water quality measurements. Our objectives were to determine whether water from "improved" sources is less likely to contain fecal contamination than "unimproved" sources and to assess the extent to which contamination varies by source type and setting. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Studies in Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish were identified from online databases, including PubMed and Web of Science, and grey literature. Studies in low- and middle-income countries published between 1990 and August 2013 that assessed drinking-water for the presence of Escherichia coli or thermotolerant coliforms (TTC) were included provided they associated results with a particular source type. In total 319 studies were included, reporting on 96,737 water samples. The odds of contamination within a given study were considerably lower for "improved" sources than "unimproved" sources (odds ratio [OR] = 0.15 [0.10-0.21], I2 = 80.3% [72.9-85.6]). However over a quarter of samples from improved sources contained fecal contamination in 38% of 191 studies. Water sources in low-income countries (OR = 2.37 [1.52-3.71]; p<0.001) and rural areas (OR = 2.37 [1.47-3.81] p<0.001) were more likely to be contaminated. Studies rarely reported stored water quality or sanitary risks and few achieved robust random selection. Safety may be overestimated due to infrequent water sampling and deterioration in quality prior to consumption. CONCLUSION: Access to an "improved source" provides a measure of sanitary protection but does not ensure water is free of fecal contamination nor is it consistent between source types or settings. International estimates therefore greatly overstate use of safe drinking-water and do not fully reflect disparities in access. An enhanced monitoring strategy would combine indicators of sanitary protection with measures of water quality.