Department for Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, United Kingdom.
Berhan Public Health & Eye Care Consultancy, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2024 Aug 14;18(8):e0012399. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012399. eCollection 2024 Aug.
There is currently no single, easy-to-use, reliable indicator to assess whether a face has been washed with soap in the context of trachoma elimination. This study aimed to compare survey report, script-based pictorial recall and facial cleanliness indicators as alternatives to structured observation for measuring face washing behaviour. This method validation study was nested in the Stronger-SAFE trial, Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Structured observation was conducted in randomly selected households for three hours from dawn. The primary caregiver in each household participated in a survey to capture (self)-reported behaviour and/or script-based pictorial recall, a routine-based diary activity to covertly capture information on face washing behaviour of themself and any children aged 1-12. Children 4-12 years old directly participated in the survey and pictorial recall in a subset of households. The facial cleanliness of children aged 1-12 was assessed qualitatively and using the quantitative Personal Hygiene Assessment Tool (qPHAT). Prevalence estimates, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were computed for each behavioural indicator with observation data as the gold standard. The appropriateness of script-based pictorial recall was assessed using baseline and 3-month follow-up data. Baseline data were collected from 204 households in 68 clusters. Survey estimates of face washing and face washing with soap among caregivers and children were 32% to 60% and 5% to 31% higher than observed behaviour, respectively. Face washing prevalence estimates from pictorial recall were lower than survey estimates and comparable with observations for some face washing with soap indicators (0.3% to 13% higher than observations). Specificity of pictorial recall indicators was high (85% to 99%), but the sensitivity was low (0% to 67%), resulting in a low positive predictive value for all indicators. Both qualitative facial cleanliness indicators and qPHAT scores were poorly correlated with observed face washing earlier that morning. Pictorial recall overestimated face washing with soap among both caregivers and children following intervention delivery but not at baseline. Survey (self)-reported data on face washing is highly inaccurate. Script-based pictorial recall does not correctly classify those who wash their face with soap, and is subject to differential bias following intervention exposure, and facial cleanliness is a poor indicator of recent face washing in settings where faces become rapidly dirty again after washing. Alternatives to structured observation cannot be recommended to monitor the effectiveness of face washing interventions in community settings. Trial Registration ISRCTN registry ISRCTN40760473, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN40760473.
目前没有一种单一的、易于使用的、可靠的指标来评估在沙眼消除背景下肥皂是否已经用于洗脸。本研究旨在比较调查报告、基于脚本的图片回忆和面部清洁指标,作为衡量洗脸行为的替代结构化观察。这项方法验证研究嵌套在埃塞俄比亚奥罗米亚地区的 Stronger-SAFE 试验中。在黎明时分从随机选择的家庭中进行三个小时的结构化观察。每个家庭的主要照顾者参与了一项调查,以获取(自我)报告的行为和/或基于脚本的图片回忆,一项常规活动,以秘密记录他们自己和任何 1-12 岁儿童的洗脸行为信息。4-12 岁的儿童在家庭的一部分中直接参与调查和图片回忆。1-12 岁儿童的面部清洁情况进行了定性评估,并使用定量个人卫生评估工具(qPHAT)进行了评估。使用观察数据作为金标准,计算了每个行为指标的患病率估计值、灵敏度、特异性和预测值。使用基线和 3 个月随访数据评估基于脚本的图片回忆的适宜性。从 68 个集群中的 204 个家庭中收集了基线数据。调查估计的照顾者和儿童洗脸和用肥皂洗脸的比例分别为 32%至 60%和 5%至 31%,高于观察到的行为。图片回忆中洗脸的流行率估计值低于调查估计值,并且与某些用肥皂洗脸的观察指标相当(比观察值高 0.3%至 13%)。图片回忆指标的特异性很高(85%至 99%),但敏感性很低(0%至 67%),导致所有指标的阳性预测值都很低。两种定性面部清洁指标和 qPHAT 评分与当天早些时候观察到的洗脸行为相关性较差。在干预措施实施后,基于脚本的图片回忆高估了照顾者和儿童用肥皂洗脸的情况,但在基线时并非如此。调查(自我)报告的洗脸数据高度不准确。基于脚本的图片回忆不能正确区分那些用肥皂洗脸的人,并且在干预暴露后会受到差异偏差的影响,在洗脸后脸很快变脏的环境中,面部清洁是近期洗脸的不良指标。在社区环境中,不能推荐替代结构化观察来监测洗脸干预措施的效果。试验注册 ISRCTN 注册表 ISRCTN40760473,https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN40760473。