The effect of a soap promotion and hygiene education campaign on handwashing behaviour in rural India: a cluster randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of a hygiene promotion intervention based on germ awareness in increasing handwashing with soap on key occasions (after faecal contact and before eating) in rural Indian households. METHODS: Cluster randomised trial of a hygiene promotion intervention in five intervention and five control villages. Handwashing was assessed through structured observation in a random sample of 30 households per village. Additionally, soap use was monitored in a sub-sample of 10 households per village using electronic motion detectors embedded in soap bars. RESULTS: The intervention reached 40% of the target population. Germ awareness increased as well as reported handwashing (a possible indicator of perceived social norms). Observed handwashing with soap on key occasions was rare (6%), especially after faecal contact (2%). Observed handwashing with soap on key occasions did not change 4 weeks after the intervention in either the intervention arm (-1%, 95% CI -2%/+0.3%), or the control arm (+0.4%, 95% CI -1%/+2%). Data from motion detectors indicated a significant but small increase in overall soap use in the intervention arm. We cannot confidently identify the nature of this increase except to say that there was no change in a key measure of handwashing after defecation. CONCLUSION: The intervention proved scalable and effective in raising hygiene awareness. There was some evidence of an impact on soap use but not on the primary outcome of handwashing at key times. However, the results do not exclude that changes in knowledge and social norms may lay the foundations for behaviour change in the longer term.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".