Ejemot-Nwadiaro Regina I, Ehiri John E, Arikpo Dachi, Meremikwu Martin M, Critchley Julia A
Department of Public Health, College of Medical Sciences, University of Calabar, Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria, PMB 1115.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 3;2015(9):CD004265. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004265.pub3.
Diarrhoea accounts for 1.8 million deaths in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One of the identified strategies to prevent diarrhoea is hand washing.
To assess the effects of hand washing promotion interventions on diarrhoeal episodes in children and adults.
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (27 May 2015); CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 5); MEDLINE (1966 to 27 May 2015); EMBASE (1974 to 27 May 2015); LILACS (1982 to 27 May 2015); PsycINFO (1967 to 27 May 2015); Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index (1981 to 27 May 2015); ERIC (1966 to 27 May 2015); SPECTR (2000 to 27 May 2015); Bibliomap (1990 to 27 May 2015); RoRe, The Grey Literature (2002 to 27 May 2015); World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), and reference lists of articles up to 27 May 2015. We also contacted researchers and organizations in the field.
Individually randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared the effects of hand washing interventions on diarrhoea episodes in children and adults with no intervention.
Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We stratified the analyses for child day-care centres or schools, community, and hospital-based settings. Where appropriate, incidence rate ratios (IRR) were pooled using the generic inverse variance method and random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.
We included 22 RCTs: 12 trials from child day-care centres or schools in mainly high-income countries (54,006 participants), nine community-based trials in LMICs (15,303 participants), and one hospital-based trial among people with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) (148 participants).Hand washing promotion (education activities, sometimes with provision of soap) at child day-care facilities or schools prevents around one-third of diarrhoea episodes in high income countries (rate ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; nine trials, 4664 participants, high quality evidence), and may prevent a similar proportion in LMICs but only two trials from urban Egypt and Kenya have evaluated this (rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; two trials, 45,380 participants, low quality evidence). Only three trials reported measures of behaviour change and the methods of data collection were susceptible to bias. In one trial from the USA hand washing behaviour was reported to improve; and in the trial from Kenya that provided free soap, hand washing did not increase, but soap use did (data not pooled; three trials, 1845 participants, low quality evidence).Hand washing promotion among communities in LMICs probably prevents around one-quarter of diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.83; eight trials, 14,726 participants, moderate quality evidence). However, six of these eight trials were from Asian settings, with only single trials from South America and sub-Saharan Africa. In six trials, soap was provided free alongside hand washing education, and the overall average effect size was larger than in the two trials which did not provide soap (soap provided: rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78; six trials, 11,422 participants; education only: rate ratio: 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; two trials, 3304 participants). There was increased hand washing at major prompts (before eating/cooking, after visiting the toilet or cleaning the baby's bottom), and increased compliance to hand hygiene procedure (behavioural outcome) in the intervention groups than the control in community trials (data not pooled: three trials, 3490 participants, high quality evidence).Hand washing promotion for the one trial conducted in a hospital among high-risk population showed significant reduction in mean episodes of diarrhoea (1.68 fewer) in the intervention group (Mean difference 1.68, 95% CI 1.93 to 1.43; one trial, 148 participants, moderate quality evidence). There was increase in hand washing frequency, seven times per day in the intervention group versus three times in the control in this hospital trial (one trial, 148 participants, moderate quality evidence).We found no trials evaluating or reporting the effects of hand washing promotions on diarrhoea-related deaths, all-cause-under five mortality, or costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Hand washing promotion probably reduces diarrhoea episodes in both child day-care centres in high-income countries and among communities living in LMICs by about 30%. However, less is known about how to help people maintain hand washing habits in the longer term.
在低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs),腹泻导致180万儿童死亡。已确定的预防腹泻的策略之一是洗手。
评估促进洗手干预措施对儿童和成人腹泻发作的影响。
我们检索了Cochrane传染病小组专业注册库(2015年5月27日);CENTRAL(发表于Cochrane图书馆2015年第5期);MEDLINE(1966年至2015年5月27日);EMBASE(1974年至2015年5月27日);LILACS(1982年至2015年5月27日);PsycINFO(1967年至2015年5月27日);科学引文索引和社会科学引文索引(1981年至2015年5月27日);ERIC(1966年至2015年5月27日);SPECTR(2000年至2015年5月27日);Bibliomap(1990年至2015年5月27日);RoRe,灰色文献(2002年至2015年5月27日);世界卫生组织(WHO)国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)、对照试验元注册库(mRCT)以及截至2015年5月27日的文章参考文献列表。我们还联系了该领域的研究人员和组织。
比较洗手干预措施与无干预措施对儿童和成人腹泻发作影响的个体随机对照试验(RCTs)和整群随机对照试验。
三位综述作者独立评估试验的合格性、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。我们对儿童日托中心或学校、社区和医院环境的分析进行了分层。在适当情况下,使用通用逆方差法和随机效应模型合并发病率比(IRR),并给出95%置信区间(CIs)。我们采用GRADE方法评估证据质量。
我们纳入了22项随机对照试验:12项试验来自主要为高收入国家的儿童日托中心或学校(54006名参与者),9项基于社区的试验来自低收入和中等收入国家(15303名参与者),1项基于医院的试验针对获得性免疫缺陷综合征(AIDS)患者(148名参与者)。在高收入国家的儿童日托设施或学校推广洗手(开展教育活动,有时提供肥皂)可预防约三分之一的腹泻发作(发病率比0.70;95%置信区间0.58至0.85;9项试验,4664名参与者,高质量证据),在低收入和中等收入国家可能预防类似比例,但仅有埃及和肯尼亚城市的两项试验对此进行了评估(发病率比0.66,95%置信区间0.43至0.99;两项试验,但仅有埃及和肯尼亚城市的两项试验对此进行了评估(发病率比0.66,95%置信区间0.43至0.99;两项试验,45380名参与者,低质量证据)。仅有三项试验报告了行为改变的测量指标,且数据收集方法易产生偏倚。在美国的一项试验中,报告洗手行为有所改善;在肯尼亚提供免费肥皂的试验中,洗手次数未增加,但肥皂使用量增加(数据未合并;三项试验,1845名参与者,低质量证据)。在低收入和中等收入国家的社区推广洗手可能预防约四分之一的腹泻发作(发病率比0.72,95%置信区间0.62至0.83;8项试验,14726名参与者,中等质量证据)。然而,这8项试验中有6项来自亚洲地区,南美洲和撒哈拉以南非洲仅有单项试验。在6项试验中,在开展洗手教育的同时免费提供肥皂,总体平均效应量大于未提供肥皂的两项试验(提供肥皂:发病率比0.66,95%置信区间0.56至0.78;6项试验,11422名参与者;仅开展教育:发病率比0.84,95%置信区间0.67至1.05;两项试验,3304名参与者)。在社区试验中,与对照组相比,干预组在主要提示(进食/做饭前、如厕后或清洁婴儿臀部后)时洗手次数增加,且对手卫生程序的依从性提高(行为结果)(数据未合并:三项试验,3490名参与者,高质量证据)。在医院针对高危人群开展的一项试验中,推广洗手使干预组腹泻平均发作次数显著减少(减少1.68次)(平均差值1.68,95%置信区间1.93至1.43;一项试验,148名参与者,中等质量证据)。在该医院试验中,干预组洗手频率增加至每天7次,而对照组为每天3次(一项试验,148名参与者,中等质量证据)。我们未发现评估或报告促进洗手对腹泻相关死亡、五岁以下儿童全因死亡率或成本影响的试验。
推广洗手可能使高收入国家儿童日托中心以及低收入和中等收入国家社区的腹泻发作次数减少约30%。然而,关于如何帮助人们长期保持洗手习惯,我们了解得较少。