MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401855366 · doi:10.1101/2024.08.20.24312313

Household behaviour change interventions to improve sanitation and hygiene practices in urban settings: a scoping review

2024· review· en· W4401855366 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Clara MacLeod, Katherine Davies, Mwamba Mwenge, Jenala Chipungu, Oliver Cumming, Robert Dreibelbis

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanitationHygienePsychological interventionEnvironmental healthLatrineBehavior changeIntervention (counseling)Open defecationMedicineImproved sanitationBehaviour changeNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Behaviour change interventions have the potential to improve sanitation and hygiene practices in urban settings. However, the evidence on which behaviour change interventions are effective is unclear. This scoping review assesses the effectiveness of behaviour change interventions on sanitation and hygiene practices in urban settings. Methods We performed electronic searches across five databases and one grey literature database to identify relevant studies published between 1 January 1990 and 20 November 2023 in English. Eligible study designs included randomised and non-randomised controlled trials with a concurrent control. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported a behaviour change intervention for improving sanitation and/or hygiene practices in an urban setting. Individual behaviour change intervention components were mapped to one of nine intervention functions of the capabilities, opportunities, motivations, and behaviour (COM-B) framework. Risk of bias was assessed for each study using an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results After de-duplication, 8,249 documents were screened by abstract and title, with 79 documents retrieved for full-text screening. We included 13 studies ranging from low- to high-quality. The behaviour change interventions had mixed effects on sanitation and hygiene practices in urban settings. Specifically, interventions improved latrine quality but not safe child faeces disposal. Interventions often improved handwashing with soap at key times and sometimes increased the presence of soap and water at the handwashing facility. There is limited evidence on the effect on food hygiene practices. Most study outcomes were measured between 6 and 12 months after intervention implementation, which may undermine the sustainability of behaviour change interventions. Conclusion Despite mixed effects on sanitation and hygiene outcomes, behaviour change interventions can improve certain practices in urban settings, such as latrine quality improvements and handwashing with soap at the household or compound level. More ambitious behaviour change interventions are needed to reduce disparities in sanitation and hygiene access in urban areas globally.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.413
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.150 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207