Dataset Information

Global Access to Handwashing: Implications for COVID-19 Control in Low-Income Countries.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Low-income countries have reduced health care system capacity and are therefore at risk of substantially higher COVID-19 case fatality rates than those currently seen in high-income countries. Handwashing is a key component of guidance to reduce transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior systematic reviews have indicated the effectiveness of handwashing to reduce transmission of respiratory viruses. In low-income countries, reduction of transmission is of paramount importance, but social distancing is challenged by high population densities and access to handwashing facilities with soap and water is limited.

Objectives

Our objective was to estimate global access to handwashing with soap and water to inform use of handwashing in the prevention of COVID-19 transmission.

Methods

We utilized observational surveys and spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression modeling in the context of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study to estimate access to a handwashing station with available soap and water for 1,062 locations from 1990 to 2019.

Results

Despite overall improvements from 1990 {33.6% [95% uncertainty interval (UI): 31.5, 35.6] without access} to 2019, globally in 2019, 2.02 (95% UI: 1.91, 2.14) billion people, 26.1% (95% UI: 24.7, 27.7) of the global population, lacked access to handwashing with available soap and water. More than 50% of the population in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania were without access to handwashing in 2019, and in eight countries, 50 million or more persons lacked access.

Discussion

For populations without handwashing access, immediate improvements in access or alternative strategies are urgently needed, and disparities in handwashing access should be incorporated into COVID-19 forecasting models when applied to low-income countries. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP7200.

SUBMITTER: Brauer M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7263456 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has affected people's engagement in health behaviors, especially those that protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 transmission, such as handwashing/sanitizing. This study investigated whether adherence to the World Health Organization's (WHO) handwashing guidelines (the outcome variable) was associated with the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic, as measured by the following 6 indicators: (i) the number of new cases of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality (a country-level mean calculated for the 14 days prior to data collection), (ii) total cases of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality accumulated since the onset of the pandemic, and (iii) changes in recent cases of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality (a difference between country-level COVID-19 morbidity/mortality in the previous 14 days compared to cases recorded 14-28 days earlier).MethodsThe observational study (#NCT04367337) enrolled 6064 adults residing in Australia, Canada, China, France, Gambia, Germany, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, and Switzerland. Data on handwashing adherence across 8 situations (indicated in the WHO guidelines) were collected via an online survey (March-July 2020). Individual-level handwashing data were matched with the date- and country-specific values of the 6 indices of the trajectory of COVID-19 pandemic, obtained from the WHO daily reports.ResultsMultilevel regression models indicated a negative association between both accumulation of the total cases of COVID-19 morbidity (B = -.041, SE = .013, p = .013) and mortality (B = -.036, SE = .014 p = .002) and handwashing. Higher levels of total COVID-related morbidity and mortality were related to lower handwashing adherence. However, increases in recent cases of COVID-19 morbidity (B = .014, SE = .007, p = .035) and mortality (B = .022, SE = .009, p = .015) were associated with higher levels of handwashing adherence. Analyses controlled for participants' COVID-19-related situation (their exposure to information about handwashing, being a healthcare professional), sociodemographic characteristics (gender, age, marital status), and country-level variables (strictness of containment and health policies, human development index). The models explained 14-20% of the variance in handwashing adherence.ConclusionsTo better explain levels of protective behaviors such as handwashing, future research should account for indicators of the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic.Trial registrationClinical Trials.Gov, # NCT04367337.

Project description:Globally, public health measures like face masks, hand hygiene and maintaining social distancing have been implemented to delay and reduce local transmission of COVID-19. To date there is emerging evidence to provide effectiveness and compliance to intervention measures on COVID-19 due to rapid spread of the disease. We synthesized evidence of community interventions and innovative practices to mitigate COVID-19 as well as previous respiratory outbreak infections which may share some aspects of transmission dynamics with COVID-19. In the study, we systematically searched the literature on community interventions to mitigate COVID-19, SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), H1N1 Influenza and MERS (middle east respiratory syndrome) epidemics in PubMed, Google Scholar, World Health Organization (WHO), MEDRXIV and Google from their inception until May 30, 2020 for up-to-date published and grey resources. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicates. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183064). Of 41,138 papers found, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria in various settings in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). One of the papers from LMICs originated from Africa (Madagascar) with the rest from Asia 9 (China 5, Bangladesh 2, Thailand 2); South America 5 (Mexico 3, Peru 2) and Europe 2 (Serbia and Romania). Following five studies on the use of face masks, the risk of contracting SARS and Influenza was reduced OR 0.78 and 95% CI = 0.36-1.67. Equally, six studies on hand hygiene practices reported a reduced risk of contracting SARS and Influenza OR 0.95 and 95% CI = 0.83-1.08. Further two studies that looked at combined use of face masks and hand hygiene interventions showed the effectiveness in controlling the transmission of influenza OR 0.94 and 95% CI = 0.58-1.54. Nine studies on social distancing intervention demonstrated the importance of physical distance through closure of learning institutions on the transmission dynamics of disease. The evidence confirms the use of face masks, good hand hygiene and social distancing as community interventions are effective to control the spread of SARS and influenza in LMICs. However, the effectiveness of community interventions in LMICs should be informed by adherence of the mitigation measures and contextual factors taking into account the best practices. The study has shown gaps in adherence/compliance of the interventions, hence a need for robust intervention studies to better inform the evidence on compliance of the interventions. Nevertheless, this rapid review of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance on similar respiratory infectious diseases like Covid-19 in Kenya and similar LMIC context.

Project description:Background COVID-19 has impacted the capacity of healthcare systems worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), which are already under strain due to population growth and insufficient resources. Since the COVID-19 pandemic's emergence, there has been an urgent need for a rapid and adequate reaction to the pandemic's disruption of healthcare systems. To this end, telemedicine has been shown in prior research to be a feasible approach. The overarching objective of this scoping review was to determine the extent and acceptance of telemedicine in healthcare in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods This scoping review followed PRISMA guidelines and Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework to identify available evidence. We systematically searched four academic databases for peer-reviewed literature published between January 2020 and April 2021: Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, as well as Google Scholar as a source for grey literature. Results The search identified 54 articles with 45,843 participants, including 6,966 healthcare professionals and 36,877 healthcare users. We identified a range of reasons for introducing telemedicine in LMICs during COVID-19, most notably to maintain non-emergency healthcare, enhance access to healthcare providers, and reduce the risk of infection among health users and providers. Overall, healthcare providers and users have shown a high level of acceptance for telemedicine services. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine provided access to healthcare in the majority of included articles. Nonetheless, some challenges to accepting telemedicine as a method of healthcare delivery have been reported, including technological, regulatory, and economical challenges. Conclusion Telemedicine was found to improve access to high-quality healthcare and decrease infection risk in LMICs during COVID-19. In general, infrastructure and regulatory barriers found to be the most significant barriers to wider telemedicine use, and should be considered when implementing telemedicine more broadly. There appears to be a need to prioritize patient data safety, as many healthcare practitioners utilized commercial apps and services as telemedicine systems. Additionally, it appears as though there is a need to increase capacity, skill, and transparency, as well as to educate patients about telemedicine.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted immunization services critical to the prevention of vaccine-preventable diseases in many low- and middle- income countries around the world. These services will need to be modified in order to minimize COVID-19 transmission and ensure the safety of health workers and the community. Additional budget will be required to implement these modifications that ensure safe delivery.MethodsUsing a simple modeling analysis, we estimated the additional resource requirements associated with modifications to supplementary immunization activities (campaigns) and routine immunization services via fixed sites and outreach in 2020 US dollars. We considered the following four categories of costs: (1) personal protective equipment (PPE) & infection prevention and control (IPC) measures for immunization sessions; (2) physical distancing and screening during immunization sessions; (3) delivery strategy changes, such as changes in session sizes and frequency; and (4) other operational cost increases, including additional social mobilization, training, and hazard pay to compensate health workers.ResultsWe found that implementing a range of measures to protect health workers and communities from COVID-19 transmission could result in a per-facility start-up cost of $466-799 for routine fixed-site delivery and $12-220 for routine outreach delivery, and $12-108 per immunization campaign site. A recurrent monthly cost of $137-1,024 for fixed-site delivery and $152-848 for outreach delivery per facility could be incurred, and a $0.32-0.85 increase in the cost per dose during campaigns.ConclusionsBy illustrating potential cost implications of providing immunization services through a range of strategies in a safe manner, these estimates can provide a benchmark for program managers and policy makers on the additional budget required. These findings can help country practitioners and global development partners planning the continuation of immunization services in the context of COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundAntimicrobial misuse is common in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), and this practice is a driver of antibiotic resistance. We compared community-based antibiotic access and use practices across communities in LMICs to identify contextually specific targets for interventions to improve antibiotic use practices.MethodsWe did quantitative and qualitative assessments of antibiotic access and use in six LMICs across Africa (Mozambique, Ghana, and South Africa) and Asia (Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Thailand) over a 2·5-year study period (July 1, 2016-Dec 31, 2018). We did quantitative assessments of community antibiotic access and use through supplier mapping, customer exit interviews, and household surveys. These quantitative assessments were triangulated with qualitative drug supplier and consumer interviews and discussions.FindingsVietnam and Bangladesh had the largest proportions of non-licensed antibiotic dispensing points. For mild illness, drug stores were the most common point of contact when seeking antibiotics in most countries, except South Africa and Mozambique, where public facilities were most common. Self-medication with antibiotics was found to be widespread in Vietnam (55·2% of antibiotics dispensed without prescription), Bangladesh (45·7%), and Ghana (36·1%), but less so in Mozambique (8·0%), South Africa (1·2%), and Thailand (3·9%). Self-medication was considered to be less time consuming, cheaper, and overall, more convenient than accessing them through health-care facilities. Factors determining where treatment was sought often involved relevant policies, trust in the supplier and the drug, disease severity, and whether the antibiotic was intended for a child. Confusion regarding how to identify oral antibiotics was revealed in both Africa and Asia.InterpretationContextual complexities and differences between countries with different incomes, policy frameworks, and cultural norms were revealed. These contextual differences render a single strategy inadequate and instead necessitate context-tailored, integrated intervention packages to improve antibiotic use in LMICs as part of global efforts to combat antibiotic resistance.FundingWellcome Trust and Volkswagen Foundation.