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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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) | 0.004 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".