Dataset Information

The association between the lack of safe drinking water and sanitation facilities with intestinal Entamoeba spp infection risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Intestinal protozoa infections are responsible for considerable morbidity and mortality, especially where the exposed population suffers from a lack of drinking water and sanitation facilities. In this study, the association between the lack of safe drinking water and sanitation (toilet) facilities with intestinal Entamoeba spp infection in the children (5-11 years), adult (18-55 years), and all age (5-55 years) were assessed. For this purpose, some of the international databases such as Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were screened to up to 7 June 2019 in order to retrieve the related citations. Also, the pooled odds ratios (ORs) following 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Twenty-nine articles with 36 studies were included while the OR extracted or calculated by using 2 × 2 contingency tables. However, the ingestion of contaminated water insignificantly can increase the odds ratio (OR) of Entamoeba spp infection (OR 1.01, (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58 to 1.43), no access to sanitation (toilet) facilities significantly can increase odds of Entamoeba spp infection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.32). The meta-regression analysis showed that over time, odds of intestinal Entamoeba spp infection increased in both lack of safe drinking water (Coefficient: 3.24, P-value < 0.01) and sanitation (toilet) facilities (Coefficient: 2.36, P-value < 0.05) subgroups. Considering the findings, lack of safe drinking water resulted in a further increase in intestinal Entamoeba spp infection among adult (OR: 2.76), children (OR = 0.57) and all age groups (OR: 1.50), and also lack of sanitation (toilet) facilities resulted in further increase intestinal Entamoeba spp infection in children (OR: 1.06), adult (OR: 1.26) and all age (OR: 1.16). In this context, the lack of safe drinking water and sanitation facilities (toilet) was associated with a high risk of intestinal Entamoeba spp infection. Further attempts to providing public health facilities can control the prevalence of intestinal Entamoeba spp.

SUBMITTER: Atabati H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7641376 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The association between the lack of safe drinking water and sanitation facilities with intestinal Entamoeba spp infection risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Atabati Hamid H Kassiri Hamid H Shamloo Ehsan E Akbari Mitra M Atamaleki Ali A Sahlabadi Fatemeh F Linh Nguyen Thi Thuy NTT Rostami Ali A Fakhri Yadolah Y Khaneghah Amin Mousavi AM

PloS one 20201104 11

Intestinal protozoa infections are responsible for considerable morbidity and mortality, especially where the exposed population suffers from a lack of drinking water and sanitation facilities. In this study, the association between the lack of safe drinking water and sanitation (toilet) facilities with intestinal Entamoeba spp infection in the children (5-11 years), adult (18-55 years), and all age (5-55 years) were assessed. For this purpose, some of the international databases such as Scopus, ...[more]

PMID: 33147225

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUniversal access to safe drinking water and sanitation facilities is an essential human right, recognised in the Sustainable Development Goals as crucial for preventing disease and improving human wellbeing. Comprehensive, high-resolution estimates are important to inform progress towards achieving this goal. We aimed to produce high-resolution geospatial estimates of access to drinking water and sanitation facilities.MethodsWe used a Bayesian geostatistical model and data from 600 sources across more than 88 low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) to estimate access to drinking water and sanitation facilities on continuous continent-wide surfaces from 2000 to 2017, and aggregated results to policy-relevant administrative units. We estimated mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive subcategories of facilities for drinking water (piped water on or off premises, other improved facilities, unimproved, and surface water) and sanitation facilities (septic or sewer sanitation, other improved, unimproved, and open defecation) with use of ordinal regression. We also estimated the number of diarrhoeal deaths in children younger than 5 years attributed to unsafe facilities and estimated deaths that were averted by increased access to safe facilities in 2017, and analysed geographical inequality in access within LMICs.FindingsAcross LMICs, access to both piped water and improved water overall increased between 2000 and 2017, with progress varying spatially. For piped water, the safest water facility type, access increased from 40·0% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 39·4-40·7) to 50·3% (50·0-50·5), but was lowest in sub-Saharan Africa, where access to piped water was mostly concentrated in urban centres. Access to both sewer or septic sanitation and improved sanitation overall also increased across all LMICs during the study period. For sewer or septic sanitation, access was 46·3% (95% UI 46·1-46·5) in 2017, compared with 28·7% (28·5-29·0) in 2000. Although some units improved access to the safest drinking water or sanitation facilities since 2000, a large absolute number of people continued to not have access in several units with high access to such facilities (>80%) in 2017. More than 253 000 people did not have access to sewer or septic sanitation facilities in the city of Harare, Zimbabwe, despite 88·6% (95% UI 87·2-89·7) access overall. Many units were able to transition from the least safe facilities in 2000 to safe facilities by 2017; for units in which populations primarily practised open defecation in 2000, 686 (95% UI 664-711) of the 1830 (1797-1863) units transitioned to the use of improved sanitation. Geographical disparities in access to improved water across units decreased in 76·1% (95% UI 71·6-80·7) of countries from 2000 to 2017, and in 53·9% (50·6-59·6) of countries for access to improved sanitation, but remained evident subnationally in most countries in 2017.InterpretationOur estimates, combined with geospatial trends in diarrhoeal burden, identify where efforts to increase access to safe drinking water and sanitation facilities are most needed. By highlighting areas with successful approaches or in need of targeted interventions, our estimates can enable precision public health to effectively progress towards universal access to safe water and sanitation.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:WHO and UNICEF have proposed an action plan to achieve universal water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) coverage in healthcare facilities (HCFs) by 2030. The WASH targets and indicators for HCFs include: an improved water source on the premises accessible to all users, basic sanitation facilities, a hand washing facility with soap and water at all sanitation facilities and patient care areas. To establish viable targets for WASH in HCFs, investigation beyond 'access' is needed to address the state of WASH infrastructure and service provision. Patient and caregiver use of WASH services is largely unaddressed in previous studies despite being critical for infection control.The state of WASH services used by staff, patients and caregivers was assessed in 17 rural HCFs in Rwanda. Site selection was non-random and predicated upon piped water and power supply. Direct observation and semi-structured interviews assessed drinking water treatment, presence and condition of sanitation facilities, provision of soap and water, and WASH-related maintenance and record keeping. Samples were collected from water sources and treated drinking water containers and analyzed for total coliforms, E. coli, and chlorine residual.Drinking water treatment was reported at 15 of 17 sites. Three of 18 drinking water samples collected met the WHO guideline for free chlorine residual of >0.2 mg/l, 6 of 16 drinking water samples analyzed for total coliforms met the WHO guideline of <1 coliform/100 mL and 15 of 16 drinking water samples analyzed for E. coli met the WHO guideline of <1 E. coli/100 mL. HCF staff reported treating up to 20 L of drinking water per day. At all sites, 60% of water access points (160 of 267) were observed to be functional, 32% of hand washing locations (46 of 142) had water and soap and 44% of sanitary facilities (48 of 109) were in hygienic condition and accessible to patients. Regular maintenance of WASH infrastructure consisted of cleaning; no HCF had on-site capacity for performing repairs. Quarterly evaluations of HCFs for Rwanda's Performance Based Financing system included WASH indicators.All HCFs met national policies for water access, but WHO guidelines for environmental standards including water quality were not fully satisfied. Access to WASH services at the HCFs differed between staff and patients and caregivers.

Project description:Arsenic contamination of drinking water is a serious public health threat. In Bangladesh, eight major safe water options provide an alternative to contaminated shallow tubewells: piped water supply, deep tubewells, pond sand filters, community arsenic-removal, household arsenic removal, dug wells, well-sharing, and rainwater harvesting. However, it is uncertain how well these options are accepted and used by the at-risk population. Based on the RANAS model (risk, attitudes, norms, ability, and self-regulation) this study aimed to identify the acceptance and use of available safe water options. Cross-sectional face-to-face interviews were used to survey 1,268 households in Bangladesh in November 2009 (n = 872), and December 2010 (n = 396). The questionnaire assessed water consumption, acceptance factors from the RANAS model, and socioeconomic factors. Although all respondents had access to at least one arsenic-safe drinking water option, only 62.1% of participants were currently using these alternatives. The most regularly used options were household arsenic removal filters (92.9%) and piped water supply (85.6%). However, the former result may be positively biased due to high refusal rates of household filter owners. The least used option was household rainwater harvesting (36.6%). Those who reported not using an arsenic-safe source differed in terms of numerous acceptance factors from those who reported using arsenic-safe sources: non-users were characterized by greater vulnerability; showed less preference for the taste and temperature of alternative sources; found collecting safe water quite time-consuming; had lower levels of social norms, self-efficacy, and coping planning; and demonstrated lower levels of commitment to collecting safe water. Acceptance was particularly high for piped water supplies and deep tubewells, whereas dug wells and well-sharing were the least accepted sources. Intervention strategies were derived from the results in order to increase the acceptance and use of each arsenic-safe water option.

Dataset Information

The association between the lack of safe drinking water and sanitation facilities with intestinal Entamoeba spp infection risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

The association between the lack of safe drinking water and sanitation facilities with intestinal Entamoeba spp infection risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets