Nutrition, Metabolic and Cardiovascular Research Centre, Institute for Medical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.
Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
PLoS One. 2024 Oct 8;19(10):e0308390. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308390. eCollection 2024.
Children are susceptible to infections due to frequent participation in school group activities and their often-suboptimal hygiene practices. Frequent infections in children affect school attendance, academic performances, and general health. The effectiveness of school-based hygiene-related intervention programmes need to be informed by updated high-quality synthesised evidence. In this systematic review, we searched PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomised and non-randomised interventional studies that evaluated school-based hygiene-related interventions. We assessed risk-of-bias (Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 tool), performed random-effect meta-analysis (RevMan 5.4) and rated certainty-of-evidence (GRADE). Thirty-nine trials (41 reports), published from 2011 to 2024 from 22 countries were included. Twenty-three studies contributed data for meta-analysis. All school-based interventions were compared with standard curriculum and demonstrated very low to low certainty-of-evidence due to study methodological limitations and imprecision. Hand-body hygiene interventions may improve knowledge, attitudes and practices (SMD 2.30, 95%CI 1.17 to 3.44, 6 studies, 7301 participants), increase handwashing practices (RR 1.75, 95%CI 1.41 to 2.17, 5 studies, 5479 participants), and reduce infection-related absenteeism (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.66 to 0.83, 5 studies, 1017852 observations). Genital hygiene interventions may improve attitude (SMD 6.53, 95%CI 2.40 to 10.66, 2 studies, 2644 participants) and practices (RR 2.44, 95%CI 1.28 to 4.68, 1 study, 1201 participants). However, intervention effects on oral hygiene appeared mixed, with worsening of the oral hygiene score (SMD 3.12, 95%CI 1.87 to 4.37, 2 studies, 652 participants) but improved dental hygiene (SMD -0.33, 95%CI -0.53 to -0.13, 3 studies, 4824 participants) and dental caries scores (SMD -0.34, 95%CI -0.52 to -0.16, 4 studies, 2352 participants). Limited evidence suggests that interventions targeting hand-body and genital hygiene practices may improve knowledge, practices, and infection-related absenteeism. However, the effects on oral hygiene intervention appeared mixed. Future research should strengthen randomisation and intervention documentation, and evaluate hygiene-related behaviour, academic performances and health outcomes.
儿童由于经常参加学校集体活动和卫生习惯不佳,容易受到感染。儿童频繁感染会影响其上学出勤率、学业成绩和整体健康。基于学校的卫生相关干预计划的有效性需要由最新的高质量综合证据来告知。在这项系统评价中,我们在 PubMed 和 Cochrane CENTRAL 中搜索了评估基于学校的卫生相关干预措施的随机和非随机干预性研究。我们评估了偏倚风险(Cochrane 偏倚风险 2 工具),进行了随机效应荟萃分析(RevMan 5.4),并对证据确定性进行了评级(GRADE)。共有 39 项试验(41 份报告),来自 22 个国家,发表于 2011 年至 2024 年。23 项研究提供了可用于荟萃分析的数据。所有基于学校的干预措施都与标准课程进行了比较,由于研究方法学上的局限性和不精确性,其证据确定性为极低至低。手部-身体卫生干预措施可能会提高知识、态度和实践(SMD 2.30,95%CI 1.17 至 3.44,6 项研究,7301 名参与者),增加洗手行为(RR 1.75,95%CI 1.41 至 2.17,5 项研究,5479 名参与者),并减少与感染相关的缺勤(RR 0.74,95%CI 0.66 至 0.83,5 项研究,1017852 次观察)。生殖器卫生干预措施可能会改善态度(SMD 6.53,95%CI 2.40 至 10.66,2 项研究,2644 名参与者)和实践(RR 2.44,95%CI 1.28 至 4.68,1 项研究,1201 名参与者)。然而,口腔卫生干预措施的效果似乎混杂,口腔卫生评分恶化(SMD 3.12,95%CI 1.87 至 4.37,2 项研究,652 名参与者),但口腔卫生(SMD -0.33,95%CI -0.53 至 -0.13,3 项研究,4824 名参与者)和龋齿评分(SMD -0.34,95%CI -0.52 至 -0.16,4 项研究,2352 名参与者)得到改善。有限的证据表明,针对手部-身体和生殖器卫生实践的干预措施可能会提高知识、实践和与感染相关的缺勤率。然而,口腔卫生干预措施的效果似乎混杂。未来的研究应该加强随机化和干预措施的记录,并评估与卫生相关的行为、学业成绩和健康结果。