Department of Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia
Addis Continental Institute of Public Health, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
BMJ Open. 2022 May 13;12(5):e056411. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056411.
To evaluate the effectiveness of handwashing with water and wood ash in reducing faecal contamination of the hands.
A cluster randomised controlled trial was employed with two arms: handwashing with water and wood ash versus handwashing with water alone.
Rural households of East Dembiya District, Central Gondar Zone, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia.
440 mothers and caregivers of children younger than 5 years assigned (1:1, 220 in each group) in clusters, with buffer zones between each cluster.
Health education on effective handwashing was given to the intervention and control groups. Participants in the intervention group used wood ash of the same quantity (ie, one closed palm).
The primary outcome was microbial contamination of the hands, measured by means of counts before and after handwashing.
At baseline, 75.9% and 67.7% of the participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively, had dirt on their fingernails, and the hands of all participants in both groups were contaminated with . The mean counts recovered at baseline were 3.07 log10 colony forming unit (CFU)/swab in the intervention group and 3.03 log10 CFU/swab in the control group, while at endline it was 1.4 log10 CFU/swab in the intervention group and 3.02 log10 CFU/swab in the control group. The mean counts was reduced by 1.65 log10 due to the intervention (difference-in-differences: β= -1.65, 95% CI= -1.84 to -1.46).
Two-thirds of the swab samples tested positive for after handwashing with water and wood ash, which indicates wood ash is not very effective in terms of completely removing micro-organisms on the hands. However, wood ash was significantly better than water alone in reducing the concentration of faecal coliform organisms on the hands. Local health authorities should primarily promote handwashing with soap. However, in the absence of soap, use of wood ash over water alone might be appropriate.
PACTR202011855730652.
评估用水和草木灰洗手对减少手部粪便污染的效果。
采用两臂的群组随机对照试验:用水和草木灰洗手与仅用水洗手。
埃塞俄比亚阿姆哈拉州中央贡德尔区东德姆比亚地区的农村家庭。
440 名 5 岁以下儿童的母亲和照顾者,按 1:1 分组(每组 220 人),每个组之间有缓冲区。
向干预组和对照组提供关于有效洗手的健康教育。干预组使用等量(即一闭手掌)的草木灰。
主要结局指标是手部微生物污染程度,通过洗手前后的细菌计数来衡量。
在基线时,干预组和对照组分别有 75.9%和 67.7%的参与者指甲上有污垢,两组所有参与者的手部均受到污染。干预组在基线时的平均细菌计数为 3.07 log10 菌落形成单位(CFU)/拭子,对照组为 3.03 log10 CFU/拭子,而在终点时,干预组为 1.4 log10 CFU/拭子,对照组为 3.02 log10 CFU/拭子。由于干预,细菌计数平均减少了 1.65 log10(差异-差异:β= -1.65,95%CI= -1.84 至-1.46)。
三分之二的拭子样本在用水和草木灰洗手后对 呈阳性,这表明草木灰在完全去除手上微生物方面效果并不理想。然而,草木灰在减少手上粪便大肠菌群浓度方面明显优于单独用水。地方卫生当局应主要推广用肥皂洗手。然而,在没有肥皂的情况下,使用草木灰优于单独用水。
PACTR202011855730652。