Diarrhoea prevention in Bolivia through point-of-use water treatment and safe storage: a promising new strategy. Keeping clean water clean in a Malawi refugee camp: a randomized intervention trial. Feasibility and efficacy of in-home water chlorination in rural North-eastern Brazil. Preventing diarrhoea with household ceramic water filters: assessment of a pilot project in Bolivia. Effect of chlorination of drinking-water on water quality and childhood diarrhoea in a village in Pakistan. Diarrhea prevention through household-level water disinfection and safe storage in Zambia. Water distribution system and diarrheal disease transmission: a case study in Uzbekistan. Diarrhoea prevention in a high-risk rural Kenyan population through point-of-use chlorination, safe water storage, sanitation, and rainwater harvesting. Randomized effectiveness trial of a computer-assisted intervention to improve diabetes care. Impact of improvement of water supply on household economy in a squatter area of Manila. Combining drinking water treatment and hand washing for diarrhoea prevention, a cluster randomised controlled trial.
A novel water quality intervention that consists of point-of-use water disinfection, safe storage and community education was field tested in Bolivia. A total of 127 households in two periurban communities were randomized into intervention and control groups, surveyed and the intervention was distributed. Monthly water quality testing and weekly diarrhoea surveillance were conducted. Over a 5-month period, intervention households had 44% fewer diarrhoea episodes than control households (P = 0.002). Infants < 1 year old (P = 0.05) and children 5-14 years old (P = 0.01) in intervention households had significantly less diarrhoea than control children. Campylobacter was less commonly isolated from intervention than control patients (P = 0.02). Stored water in intervention households was less contaminated with Escherichia coli than stored water in control households (P < 0.0001). Intervention households exhibited less E. coli contamination of stored water and less diarrhoea than control households. This promising new strategy may have broad applicability for waterborne disease prevention. This study was undertaken to assess the ability of a water container with a cover and a spout to prevent household contamination of water in a Malawian refugee camp.
                A randomized trial was conducted in a refugee population that had experienced repeated outbreaks of cholera and diarrhoea and where contamination of water in the home was found to be a significant cause of cholera. Four hundred Mozambican refugee households were systematically identified and followed over a 4-month period, one fourth of the households were randomly assigned to exclusively use the improved container for water collection.
                Water flowing from the source wells had little or no microbial contamination although the water collectors quickly contaminated their water, primarily through contact with their hands. Analysis of water samples demonstrated that there was a 69% reduction in the geometric mean of faecal coliform levels in household water and 31% less diarrhoeal disease (P = 0.06) in children under 5 years of age among the group using the improved bucket. Regression models examining diarrhoea among under 5-year-olds confirmed the protective effect of the bucket and found that visible faeces in the family latrine and the presence of animals were significantly associated with an increased diarrhoeal incidence in children.
                Household contamination of drinking-water significantly contributed to diarrhoea in this population. Proper chlorination is a less expensive and more effective means of water quality protection in comparison with the improved bucket, but was unpopular and rarely utilized by the camp inhabitants. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility, acceptability and effect of an in-home water chlorination programme in a rural village. Previous studies at this site showed high levels of faecal coliforms in household water, high diarrhoea rates in children, and enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli and rotaviruses were the most common pathogens isolated from patients. Household water came from a pond and was stored in clay pots. No homes had sanitary facilities. A blind, cross-over trial of treatment of household water with inexpensive hypochlorite by a community health worker was carried out over 18 weeks among 20 families. Water in the clay pots was sampled serially, and symptom surveillance was done by medical students. The programme was generally acceptable to the villagers and no change in water use patterns were apparent. The mean faecal coliform level in the chlorinated water was significantly less than in the placebo treated samples (70 vs 16000 organisms/dl, P less than 0.001). People living in houses receiving placebo treatment had a mean of 11.2 days of diarrhoea per year, and the highest rate of 36.7 was among children less than 2 years old. Diarrhoea rates were not significantly different among the participants while exposed to water treated with hypochlorite. We conclude that a low-cost programme of this type, which utilizes community resources, is logistically feasible, appears to be culturally acceptable in this setting, and can result in a marked reduction in water contamination. The lack of effect on diarrhoea rates suggests that improvement in water quality may affect morbidity only when other variables relating to faecal-oral agent transmission are ameliorated at the same time. In an attempt to prevent diarrhoea in a rural community in central Bolivia, an international non-governmental organization implemented a pilot project to improve drinking water quality using gravity-fed, household-based, ceramic water filters. We assessed the performance of the filters by conducting a five-month randomized controlled trial among all 60 households in the pilot community. Water filters eliminated thermotolerant (faecal) coliforms from almost all intervention households and significantly reduced turbidity, thereby improving water aesthetics. Most importantly, the filters were associated with a 45.3% reduction in prevalence of diarrhoea among the study population (p = 0.02). After adjustment for household clustering and repeated episodes in individuals and controlling for age and baseline diarrhoea, prevalence of diarrhoea among the intervention group was 51% lower than controls, though the protective effect was only borderline significant (OR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.24, 1.01; p = 0.05). A follow-up survey conducted approximately 9 months after deployment of the filters found 67% being used regularly, 13% being used intermittently, and 21% not in use. Water samples from all regularly used filters were free of thermotolerant coliforms. To evaluate the importance of public-domain transmission of pathogens in drinking-water, an intervention study was carried out by chlorinating the public water-supply system in a village in Pakistan. The water quality improved and reached a geometric mean of 3 Escherichia coli per 100 mL at the last standpipe of the water-supply system. Drinking-water source used and the occurrence of diarrhoea were monitored on a weekly basis over a six-month period among 144 children aged less than five years in the village. In this group, the children using chlorinated water from the water-supply scheme had a higher risk of diarrhoea than children using groundwater sources, controlled for confounding by season and availability of a toilet and a water-storage facility. The incidence of diarrhoea in the village (7.3 episodes per 10(3) person-days) was not statistically different from that in a neighbouring village where most children used water from a non-chlorinated water-supply system with very poor water quality. In this study area, under non-epidemic conditions, the reduction of faecal bacteria in the public drinking-water supply by chlorination does not seem to be a priority intervention to reduce childhood diarrhoea. However, the study was of limited size and cannot provide conclusive evidence. A water quality intervention that consists of water treatment, safe storage, and community education was field tested in Kitwe, Zambia. A total of 166 intervention households were randomly selected from one community and 94 control households from another. Baseline surveys were conducted and the intervention was distributed. Weekly active diarrhea surveillance, biweekly water testing, and a follow-up survey were conducted. Compliance was high in intervention households: 97% reported using disinfectant and 72-95% had measurable chlorine in their water in biweekly testing. The percentage of intervention households storing water safely increased from 41.5% to 89.2%. Stored water in intervention households was significantly less contaminated with Escherichia coli than water in control households (P < 0.001). Diarrheal disease risk for individuals in intervention households was 48% lower than for controls (95% confidence interval = 0.3, 0.9). This intervention is a useful tool for preventing waterborne diseases in families in developing countries who lack access to potable water. Deteriorating water treatment facilities and distribution systems pose a significant public health threat, particularly in republics of the former Soviet Union. Interventions to decrease the disease burden associated with these water systems range from upgrading distribution networks to installing reverse osmosis technology. To provide insight into this decision process, we conducted a randomized intervention study to provide epidemiologic data for water policy decisions in Nukus, Uzbekistan, where drinking water quality is suboptimal. We interviewed residents of 240 households, 120 with and 120 without access to municipal piped water. Residents of 62 households without piped water were trained to chlorinate their drinking water at home in a narrow-necked water container with a spout. All study subjects (1583 individuals) were monitored biweekly for self-reported diarrheal illness over a period of 9.5 weeks. The home chlorination intervention group had the lowest diarrheal rate (28.8/1,000 subjects/month) despite lack of access to piped water in their homes. Compared with the two groups that did not receive the intervention this rate was one-sixth that of the group with no piped water (179.2/1,000 subjects/month) and one-third that of the households with piped water (75.5/1,000 subjects/month). More than 30% of the households with piped water lacked detectable levels of chlorine residues in their drinking water, despite two-stage chlorination of the source water, and were at increased risk of diarrhea. Forty-two percent of these municipal users reported that water pressure had been intermittent within the previous two days. The dramatic reduction in diarrheal rates in the home-chlorination intervention group indicates that a large proportion of diarrheal diseases in Nukus are water-borne. The home-chlorination group had less diarrhea than the group with piped water, implicating the distribution system as a source of disease transmission. Taken together, these epidemiologic data would support the hypothesis that diarrhea in the piped water group could be attributed to cross-contamination between the municipal water supply and sewer, due to leaky pipes and lack of water pressure. Relatively inexpensive steps, including chlorination, maintaining water pressure, and properly maintaining the distribution system, rather than reverse osmosis technology, should reduce diarrheal rates. Lack of access to safe water and sanitation contributes to diarrhoea moribidity and mortality in developing countries. We evaluated the impact of household water treatment, latrines, shallow wells, and rainwater harvesting on diarrhoea incidence in rural Kenyan children. We compared diarrhoea rates in 960 children aged <5 years in 556 households in 12 randomly selected intervention villages and six randomly selected comparison villages during weekly home visits over an 8-week period. On multivariate analysis, chlorinating stored water [relative risk (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28-0.69], latrine presence (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54-0.92), rainwater use (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.95), and living in an intervention village (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.23-0.41), were independently associated with lower diarrhoea risk. Diarrhoea risk was higher among shallow well users (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.12-2.83). Chlorinating stored water, latrines, and rainwater use all decreased diarrhoea risk; combined interventions may have increased health impact. There is a well-documented gap between diabetes care guidelines and the services received by patients in most health care settings. This report presents 12-month follow-up results from a computer-assisted, patient-centered intervention to improve the level of recommended services patients received from a variety of primary care settings.
                A total of 886 patients with type 2 diabetes under the care of 52 primary care physicians participated in the Diabetes Priority Program. Physicians were stratified and randomized to intervention or control conditions and evaluated on two primary outcomes: number of recommended laboratory screenings and recommended patient-centered care activities completed from the National Committee on Quality Assurance/American Diabetes Association Provider Recognition Program (PRP). Secondary outcomes were evaluated using the Problem Areas in Diabetes 2 quality of life scale, lipid and HbA1c levels, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 depression scale.
                The program was well implemented and significantly improved both the number of laboratory assays and patient-centered aspects of diabetes care patients received compared with those in the control condition. There was overall improvement on secondary outcomes of lipids, HbA1c, quality of life, and depression scores; between-condition differences were not significant.
                Staff in small, mixed-payer primary care offices can consistently implement a patient-centered intervention to improve PRP measures of quality of diabetes care. Alternative explanations for why these process improvements did not lead to improved outcomes, and suggested directions for future research are discussed. To estimate the impact of the improvement of water supply. a comparative study on water collection and household expenditure on water was conducted between a former squatter community with an improved water supply (Leveriza: LE) and a typical squatter community with public water faucets (Maestranza: MA) in Manila, the Philippines. Data were collected from 201 structured household interviews and a focus group discussion among housewives in each community. To measure the time spent collecting water, observations of private and public water faucets were conducted. The residents in LE enjoyed significantly larger quantities of water from private water connections than in MA, where only three public water faucets were available as a water source. Conversely, the unit price of water in LE was much lower than in MA. In LE, 72.1% of the households started working for more income using time saved through the improvement of water supply and the proportion of the households under the poverty threshold was reduced from 55.6% to 29.9%. In MA, 68.6% of the households expressed their willingness to work for more income when time spent collecting water was saved. It would be possible for MA to reduce the proportion of the households under the poverty threshold through the improvement of the water supply. The results of the study indicated that the improvement of water supply would possibly encourage urban slum residents to increase their household incomes through reallocating time saved to income-generating activities. The underserved residents spent more money for less water compared to those with access to private water connections. In MA, it took 3-4 h, on average, to complete one water collecting task, even though the nearest public water faucet was within 100 m of any housing unit. This suggests that the definition of accessibility to safe water be reconsidered when discussing the urban poor. To evaluate the effectiveness of point of use water treatment with flocculent-disinfectant on reducing diarrhoea and the additional benefit of promoting hand washing with soap.
                The study was conducted in squatter settlements of Karachi, Pakistan, where diarrhoea is a leading cause of childhood death. Interventions were randomly assigned to 47 neighbourhoods. Households in 10 neighbourhoods received diluted bleach and a water vessel; nine neighbourhoods received soap and were encouraged to wash hands; nine neighbourhoods received flocculent-disinfectant water treatment and a water vessel; 10 neighbourhoods received disinfectant-disinfectant water treatment and soap and were encouraged to wash hands; and nine neighbourhoods were followed as controls. Field workers visited households at least once a week from April to December 2003 to promote use of the interventions and to collect data on diarrhoea.
                Study participants in control neighbourhoods had diarrhoea on 5.2% of days. Compared to controls, participants living in intervention neighbourhoods had a lower prevalence of diarrhoea: 55% (95% CI 17%, 80%) lower in bleach and water vessel neighbourhoods, 51% (95% CI 12%, 76%) lower in hand washing promotion with soap neighbourhoods, 64% lower (95% CI 29%, 90%) in disinfectant-disinfectant neighbourhoods, and 55% (95% CI 18%, 80%) lower in disinfectant-disinfectant plus hand washing with soap neighbourhoods.
                With an intense community-based intervention and supplies provided free of cost, each of the home-based interventions significantly reduced diarrhoea. There was no benefit by combining hand washing promotion with water treatment.
Interventions to improve water quality are generally effective in preventing diarrhoea, and interventions to improve water quality at the household level are more effective than those at the source. Significant heterogeneity among the trials suggests that the actual level of effectiveness may depend on a variety of conditions that research to date cannot fully explain. Rigorous, blinded, multi-arm randomized controlled trials conducted over a longer duration in a variety if settings may help clarify the potential effectiveness.