Preventive chemotherapy represents a powerful but short-term control strategy for soil-transmitted helminthiasis. Since humans are often re-infected rapidly, long-term solutions require improvements ...in water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH). The purpose of this study was to quantitatively summarize the relationship between WASH access or practices and soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infection.
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the associations of improved WASH on infection with STH (Ascaris lumbricoides, Trichuris trichiura, hookworm Ancylostoma duodenale and Necator americanus, and Strongyloides stercoralis). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and LILACS were searched from inception to October 28, 2013 with no language restrictions. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they provided an estimate for the effect of WASH access or practices on STH infection. We assessed the quality of published studies with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. A total of 94 studies met our eligibility criteria; five were randomized controlled trials, whilst most others were cross-sectional studies. We used random-effects meta-analyses and analyzed only adjusted estimates to help account for heterogeneity and potential confounding respectively. Use of treated water was associated with lower odds of STH infection (odds ratio OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.36-0.60). Piped water access was associated with lower odds of A. lumbricoides (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.39-0.41) and T. trichiura infection (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45-0.72), but not any STH infection (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.28-3.11). Access to sanitation was associated with decreased likelihood of infection with any STH (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.76), T. trichiura (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.50-0.74), and A. lumbricoides (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.88), but not with hookworm infection (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.61-1.06). Wearing shoes was associated with reduced odds of hookworm infection (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.18-0.47) and infection with any STH (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11-0.83). Handwashing, both before eating (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26-0.55) and after defecating (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35-0.58), was associated with lower odds of A. lumbricoides infection. Soap use or availability was significantly associated with lower infection with any STH (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.98), as was handwashing after defecation (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24-0.90). Observational evidence constituted the majority of included literature, which limits any attempt to make causal inferences. Due to underlying heterogeneity across observational studies, the meta-analysis results reflect an average of many potentially distinct effects, not an average of one specific exposure-outcome relationship.
WASH access and practices are generally associated with reduced odds of STH infection. Pooled estimates from all meta-analyses, except for two, indicated at least a 33% reduction in odds of infection associated with individual WASH practices or access. Although most WASH interventions for STH have focused on sanitation, access to water and hygiene also appear to significantly reduce odds of infection. Overall quality of evidence was low due to the preponderance of observational studies, though recent randomized controlled trials have further underscored the benefit of handwashing interventions. Limited use of the Joint Monitoring Program's standardized water and sanitation definitions in the literature restricted efforts to generalize across studies. While further research is warranted to determine the magnitude of benefit from WASH interventions for STH control, these results call for multi-sectoral, integrated intervention packages that are tailored to social-ecological contexts.
Trachoma is the world's leading cause of infectious blindness. The World Health Organization (WHO) has endorsed the SAFE strategy in order to eliminate blindness due to trachoma by 2020 through ..."surgery," "antibiotics," "facial cleanliness," and "environmental improvement." While the S and A components have been widely implemented, evidence and specific targets are lacking for the F and E components, of which water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) are critical elements. Data on the impact of WASH on trachoma are needed to support policy and program recommendations. Our objective was to systematically review the literature and conduct meta-analyses where possible to report the effects of WASH conditions on trachoma and identify research gaps.
We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, MedCarib, Lilacs, REPIDISCA, DESASTRES, and African Index Medicus databases through October 27, 2013 with no restrictions on language or year of publication. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported a measure of the effect of WASH on trachoma, either active disease indicated by observed signs of trachomatous inflammation or Chlamydia trachomatis infection diagnosed using PCR. We identified 86 studies that reported a measure of the effect of WASH on trachoma. To evaluate study quality, we developed a set of criteria derived from the GRADE methodology. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. If three or more studies reported measures of effect for a comparable WASH exposure and trachoma outcome, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis. We conducted 15 meta-analyses for specific exposure-outcome pairs. Access to sanitation was associated with lower trachoma as measured by the presence of trachomatous inflammation-follicular or trachomatous inflammation-intense (TF/TI) (odds ratio OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.95) and C. trachomatis infection (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.78). Having a clean face was significantly associated with reduced odds of TF/TI (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32-0.52), as were facial cleanliness indicators lack of ocular discharge (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.23-0.61) and lack of nasal discharge (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.52-0.72). Facial cleanliness indicators were also associated with reduced odds of C. trachomatis infection: lack of ocular discharge (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.31-0.49) and lack of nasal discharge (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37-0.76). Other hygiene factors found to be significantly associated with reduced TF/TI included face washing at least once daily (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57-0.96), face washing at least twice daily (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80-0.90), soap use (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59-0.93), towel use (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.53-0.78), and daily bathing practices (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53-0.99). Living within 1 km of a water source was not found to be significantly associated with TF/TI or C. trachomatis infection, and the use of sanitation facilities was not found to be significantly associated with TF/TI.
We found strong evidence to support F and E components of the SAFE strategy. Though limitations included moderate to high heterogenity, low study quality, and the lack of standard definitions, these findings support the importance of WASH in trachoma elimination strategies and the need for the development of standardized approaches to measuring WASH in trachoma control programs.
Lymphedema of the leg and its advanced form, known as elephantiasis, are significant causes of disability and morbidity in areas endemic for lymphatic filariasis (LF), with an estimated 14 million ...persons affected worldwide. The twin goals of the World Health Organization's Global Program to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis include interrupting transmission of the parasitic worms that cause LF and providing care to persons who suffer from its clinical manifestations, including lymphedema-so-called morbidity management and disability prevention (MMDP). Scaling up of MMDP has been slow, in part because of a lack of consensus about the effectiveness of recommended hygiene-based interventions for clinical lymphedema.
We conducted a systemic review and meta-analyses to estimate the effectiveness of hygiene-based interventions on LF-related lymphedema. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, MedCarib, Lilacs, REPIDISCA, DESASTRES, and African Index Medicus databases through March 23, 2015 with no restriction on year of publication. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they (1) were conducted in an area endemic for LF, (2) involved hygiene-based interventions to manage lymphedema, and (3) assessed lymphedema-related morbidity. For clinical outcomes for which three or more studies assessed comparable interventions for lymphedema, we conducted random-effects meta-analyses. Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria and two meta-analyses were possible. To evaluate study quality, we developed a set of criteria derived from the GRADE methodology. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. Participation in hygiene-based lymphedema management was associated with a lower incidence of acute dermatolymphagioadenitis (ADLA), (Odds Ratio 0.32, 95% CI 0.25-0.40), as well as with a decreased percentage of patients reporting at least one episode of ADLA during follow-up (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12-0.47). Limitations included high heterogeneity across studies and variation in components of lymphedema management.
Available evidence strongly supports the effectiveness of hygiene-based lymphedema management in LF-endemic areas. Despite the aforementioned limitations, these findings highlight the potential to significantly reduce LF-associated morbidity and disability as well as the need to develop standardized approaches to MMDP in LF-endemic areas.
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.
Objectif
Estimer la prévalence mondiale du lavage des mains avec du savon et en tirer une estimation globale de l'effet de l'hygiène sur les maladies diarrhéiques, sur base d'une recherche systématique dans la littérature.
Méthodes
Les études avec des données sur les taux observés de lavage des mains avec du savon publiées entre 1990 et août 2013 ont été identifiées à partir d'une recherche systématique sur PubMed, Embase et ISI Web of Knowledge. Une recherche séparée a été menée pour les études sur l'effet de l'hygiène sur les maladies diarrhéiques comprenant des essais contrôlés randomisés, des essais quasi‐randomisés avec un groupe contrôle, des études d'observation à l'aide de techniques d'appariement et des études d'observation avec un groupe contrôle où l'intervention a été bien définie. La recherche a été menée sur Cochrane Library, Gobal Health, BIOSIS, PubMed et les bases de données Embase complétées par les listes de références des revues systématiques publiées antérieurement, pour identifier les études publiées entre 1970 et août 2013. Les résultats ont été combinés en utilisant la modélisation à multi‐niveaux pour la prévalence du lavage des mains et la méta‐régression pour les estimations de risque.
Résultats
A partir des 42 études rapportant sur la prévalence du lavage des mains, nous estimons qu'environ 19% de la population mondiale se lave les mains avec du savon après tout contact avec les excréments (i.e. l'utilisation d'une installation d'assainissement ou le contact avec les excréments des enfants). La méta‐régression des estimations du risque suggère que le lavage des mains réduit le risque de maladies diarrhéiques de 40% (rapport de risque: 0,60; IC95%: 0,53 à 0,68). Cependant, quand nous avons inclus un ajustement pour les études ouvertes, l'estimation de l'effet a été réduite à 23% (rapport de risque: 0,77; IC95%: 0,32 à 1,86).
Conclusions
Nos résultats montrent que le lavage des mains après contact avec des excréments est mal pratiqué à l’échelle mondiale, malgré les bienfaits probables pour la santé.
Objetivo
Calcular la prevalencia global del lavado de manos con jabón y realizar un cálculo de los datos agrupados sobre el efecto de la higiene en la enfermedad diarreica, basado en una búsqueda sistemática en la literatura.
Métodos
Los estudios con datos sobre las tasas observadas de lavado de manos con jabón publicados entre 1990 y Agosto del 2013, se identificaron utilizando una búsqueda sistemática en PubMed, Embase y la ISI Web of Knowledge. Se realizó una búsqueda separada para estudios sobre el efecto de la higiene en la enfermedad diarréica que incluían ensayos aleatorizados controlados, ensayos cuasi‐aleatorizados con grupo control, estudios observacionales pareados y estudios observacionales con grupo control en donde la intervención estaba bien definida. La búsqueda utilizó las bases de datos de la Biblioteca de Cochrane, Global Health, BIOSIS, PubMed, y Embase suplementado con una búsqueda en las listas de las referencias de revisiones sistemáticas previamente publicadas, para identificar estudios publicados entre 1970 y Agosto 2013. Los resultados se combinaron utilizando modelos multinivel para la prevalencia del lavado de manos y meta‐regresión para los cálculos de riesgo.
Resultados
De los 42 estudios que reportaban la prevalencia del lavado de manos, calculamos que aproximadamente un 19% de la población mundial se lava las manos con jabón después del contacto con excreciones (es decir el uso de una instalación sanitaria o el contacto con excreciones de niños). Los cálculos de riesgo por meta‐regresión sugieren que el lavado de manos reduce el riesgo de enfermedad diarréica en un 40% (riesgo relativo 0.60, IC 95% 0.53–0.68); sin embargo, cuando al incluír un ajuste para estudios abiertos, el cálculo del efecto se reducía al 23% (riesgo relativo 0.77, IC 95% 0.32–1.86).
Conclusiones
Nuestros resultados muestran que el lavado de manos después del contacto con excreciones es una práctica poco común a nivel global, a pesar de sus posibles beneficios sobre la salud.
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.
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.
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).
Our results show that handwashing after contact with excreta is poorly practiced globally, despite the likely positive health benefits.
Background Lymphedema of the leg and its advanced form, known as elephantiasis, are significant causes of disability and morbidity in areas endemic for lymphatic filariasis (LF), with an estimated 14 ...million persons affected worldwide. The twin goals of the World Health Organization's Global Program to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis include interrupting transmission of the parasitic worms that cause LF and providing care to persons who suffer from its clinical manifestations, including lymphedema--so-called morbidity management and disability prevention (MMDP). Scaling up of MMDP has been slow, in part because of a lack of consensus about the effectiveness of recommended hygiene-based interventions for clinical lymphedema. Methods and Findings We conducted a systemic review and meta-analyses to estimate the effectiveness of hygiene-based interventions on LF-related lymphedema. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, MedCarib, Lilacs, REPIDISCA, DESASTRES, and African Index Medicus databases through March 23, 2015 with no restriction on year of publication. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they (1) were conducted in an area endemic for LF, (2) involved hygiene-based interventions to manage lymphedema, and (3) assessed lymphedema-related morbidity. For clinical outcomes for which three or more studies assessed comparable interventions for lymphedema, we conducted random-effects meta-analyses. Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria and two meta-analyses were possible. To evaluate study quality, we developed a set of criteria derived from the GRADE methodology. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. Participation in hygiene-based lymphedema management was associated with a lower incidence of acute dermatolymphagioadenitis (ADLA), (Odds Ratio 0.32, 95% CI 0.25-0.40), as well as with a decreased percentage of patients reporting at least one episode of ADLA during follow-up (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12-0.47). Limitations included high heterogeneity across studies and variation in components of lymphedema management. Conclusions Available evidence strongly supports the effectiveness of hygiene-based lymphedema management in LF-endemic areas. Despite the aforementioned limitations, these findings highlight the potential to significantly reduce LF-associated morbidity and disability as well as the need to develop standardized approaches to MMDP in LF-endemic areas.
Background Lymphedema of the leg and its advanced form, known as elephantiasis, are significant causes of disability and morbidity in areas endemic for lymphatic filariasis (LF), with an estimated 14 ...million persons affected worldwide. The twin goals of the World Health Organization's Global Program to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis include interrupting transmission of the parasitic worms that cause LF and providing care to persons who suffer from its clinical manifestations, including lymphedema--so-called morbidity management and disability prevention (MMDP). Scaling up of MMDP has been slow, in part because of a lack of consensus about the effectiveness of recommended hygiene-based interventions for clinical lymphedema. Methods and Findings We conducted a systemic review and meta-analyses to estimate the effectiveness of hygiene-based interventions on LF-related lymphedema. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, MedCarib, Lilacs, REPIDISCA, DESASTRES, and African Index Medicus databases through March 23, 2015 with no restriction on year of publication. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they (1) were conducted in an area endemic for LF, (2) involved hygiene-based interventions to manage lymphedema, and (3) assessed lymphedema-related morbidity. For clinical outcomes for which three or more studies assessed comparable interventions for lymphedema, we conducted random-effects metaanalyses. Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria and two meta-analyses were possible. To evaluate study quality, we developed a set of criteria derived from the GRADE methodology. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. Participation in hygiene-based lymphedema management was associated with a lower incidence of acute dermatolymphagioadenitis (ADLA), (Odds Ratio 0.32, 95% CI 0.25-0.40), as well as with a decreased percentage of patients reporting at least one episode of ADLA during follow-up (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12-0.47). Limitations included high heterogeneity across studies and variation in components of lymphedema management. Conclusions Available evidence strongly supports the effectiveness of hygiene-based lymphedema management in LF-endemic areas. Despite the aforementioned limitations, these findings highlight the potential to significantly reduce LF-associated morbidity and disability as well as the need to develop standardized approaches to MMDP in LF-endemic areas.
Background Preventive chemotherapy represents a powerful but short-term control strategy for soil-transmitted helminthiasis. Since humans are often re-infected rapidly, long-term solutions require ...improvements in water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH). The purpose of this study was to quantitatively summarize the relationship between WASH access or practices and soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infection. Methods and Findings We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the associations of improved WASH on infection with STH (Ascaris lumbricoides, Trichuris trichiura, hookworm Ancylostoma duodenale and Necator americanus, and Strongyloides stercoralis). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and LILACS were searched from inception to October 28, 2013 with no language restrictions. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they provided an estimate for the effect of WASH access or practices on STH infection. We assessed the quality of published studies with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. A total of 94 studies met our eligibility criteria; five were randomized controlled trials, whilst most others were cross-sectional studies. We used random-effects meta-analyses and analyzed only adjusted estimates to help account for heterogeneity and potential confounding respectively. Use of treated water was associated with lower odds of STH infection (odds ratio OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.36-0.60). Piped water access was associated with lower odds of A. lumbricoides (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.39-0.41) and T. trichiura infection (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45-0.72), but not any STH infection (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.28-3.11). Access to sanitation was associated with decreased likelihood of infection with any STH (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.76), T. trichiura (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.50-0.74), and A. lumbricoides (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.88), but not with hookworm infection (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.61-1.06). Wearing shoes was associated with reduced odds of hookworm infection (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.18-0.47) and infection with any STH (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11-0.83). Handwashing, both before eating (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26-0.55) and after defecating (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35-0.58), was associated with lower odds of A. lumbricoides infection. Soap use or availability was significantly associated with lower infection with any STH (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.98), as was handwashing after defecation (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24-0.90). Observational evidence constituted the majority of included literature, which limits any attempt to make causal inferences. Due to underlying heterogeneity across observational studies, the meta-analysis results reflect an average of many potentially distinct effects, not an average of one specific exposure-outcome relationship. Conclusions WASH access and practices are generally associated with reduced odds of STH infection. Pooled estimates from all meta-analyses, except for two, indicated at least a 33% reduction in odds of infection associated with individual WASH practices or access. Although most WASH interventions for STH have focused on sanitation, access to water and hygiene also appear to significantly reduce odds of infection. Overall quality of evidence was low due to the preponderance of observational studies, though recent randomized controlled trials have further underscored the benefit of handwashing interventions. Limited use of the Joint Monitoring Program's standardized water and sanitation definitions in the literature restricted efforts to generalize across studies. While further research is warranted to determine the magnitude of benefit from WASH interventions for STH control, these results call for multi-sectoral, integrated intervention packages that are tailored to social-ecological contexts. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Background Trachoma is the world's leading cause of infectious blindness. The World Health Organization (WHO) has endorsed the SAFE strategy in order to eliminate blindness due to trachoma by 2020 ...through "surgery," "antibiotics," "facial cleanliness," and "environmental improvement." While the S and A components have been widely implemented, evidence and specific targets are lacking for the F and E components, of which water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) are critical elements. Data on the impact of WASH on trachoma are needed to support policy and program recommendations. Our objective was to systematically review the literature and conduct meta-analyses where possible to report the effects of WASH conditions on trachoma and identify research gaps. Methods and Findings We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, MedCarib, Lilacs, REPIDISCA, DESASTRES, and African Index Medicus databases through October 27, 2013 with no restrictions on language or year of publication. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported a measure of the effect of WASH on trachoma, either active disease indicated by observed signs of trachomatous inflammation or Chlamydia trachomatis infection diagnosed using PCR. We identified 86 studies that reported a measure of the effect of WASH on trachoma. To evaluate study quality, we developed a set of criteria derived from the GRADE methodology. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. If three or more studies reported measures of effect for a comparable WASH exposure and trachoma outcome, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis. We conducted 15 meta-analyses for specific exposure-outcome pairs. Access to sanitation was associated with lower trachoma as measured by the presence of trachomatous inflammation-follicular or trachomatous inflammation-intense (TF/TI) (odds ratio OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.95) and C. trachomatis infection (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.78). Having a clean face was significantly associated with reduced odds of TF/TI (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32-0.52), as were facial cleanliness indicators lack of ocular discharge (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.23-0.61) and lack of nasal discharge (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.52-0.72). Facial cleanliness indicators were also associated with reduced odds of C. trachomatis infection: lack of ocular discharge (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.31-0.49) and lack of nasal discharge (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37-0.76). Other hygiene factors found to be significantly associated with reduced TF/TI included face washing at least once daily (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57-0.96), face washing at least twice daily (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80-0.90), soap use (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59-0.93), towel use (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.53-0.78), and daily bathing practices (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53-0.99). Living within 1 km of a water source was not found to be significantly associated with TF/TI or C. trachomatis infection, and the use of sanitation facilities was not found to be significantly associated with TF/TI. Conclusions We found strong evidence to support F and E components of the SAFE strategy. Though limitations included moderate to high heterogenity, low study quality, and the lack of standard definitions, these findings support the importance of WASH in trachoma elimination strategies and the need for the development of standardized approaches to measuring WASH in trachoma control programs. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
PDF
