MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910376764 · doi:10.4269/ajtmh.18-0705

WASH for WORMS: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of the Impact of a Community Integrated Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene and Deworming Intervention on Soil-Transmitted Helminth Infections

2019· article· en· W2910376764 on OpenAlex
Susana Vaz Nery, Rebecca J. Traub, James McCarthy, Naomi E. Clarke, Salvador Amaral, Stacey Llewellyn, Edmund Weking, Alice Richardson, Suzy J. Campbell, Darren J. Gray, Andrew Vallely, Gail Williams, Ross Andrews, Archie C. A. Clements

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicParasites and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Infection and ImmunityNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilUniversity of New South WalesCurtin University of TechnologyCharles Darwin UniversityAustralian GovernmentQIMR Berghofer Medical Research InstituteMenzies School of Health Research
KeywordsDewormingNecator americanusHygieneSanitationMedicineEnvironmental healthRandomized controlled trialHelminthiasisCluster randomised controlled trialRelative riskConfidence intervalVeterinary medicineHelminthsInternal medicineImmunologyAscaris lumbricoides

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions have been proposed as an important complement to deworming programs for sustainable control of soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infections. We aimed to determine whether a community-based WASH program had additional benefits in reducing STH infections compared with community deworming alone. We conducted the WASH for WORMS cluster-randomized controlled trial in 18 rural communities in Timor-Leste. Intervention communities received a WASH intervention that provided access to an improved water source, promoted improved household sanitation, and encouraged handwashing with soap. All eligible community members in intervention and control arms received albendazole every 6 months for 2 years. The primary outcomes were infection with each STH, measured using multiplex real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction. We compared outcomes between study arms using generalized linear mixed models, accounting for clustering at community, household, and individual levels. At study completion, the integrated WASH and deworming intervention did not have an effect on infection with Ascaris spp. (relative risk [RR] 2.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66–12.48, P = 0.159) or Necator americanus (RR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.52–1.89, P = 0.987), compared with deworming alone. At the last follow-up, open defecation was practiced by 66.1% (95% CI: 54.2–80.2) of respondents in the control arm versus 40.2% (95% CI: 25.3–52.6) of respondents in the intervention arm ( P = 0.005). We found no evidence that the WASH intervention resulted in additional reductions in STH infections beyond that achieved with deworming alone over the 2-year trial period. The role of WASH on STH infections over a longer period of time and in the absence of deworming remains to be determined.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it