Interventions to improve water quality Interventions to improve water quality to prevent diarrhoeal disease: to prevent diarrhoeal disease: a systematic review and a systematic review and case study in Colombia case study in Colombia Thomas F. Clasen London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Keppel St., London WC1E 7HT, United Kingdom [email protected]Girardot, Mayo 2006
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Interventions to improve water quality Interventions to improve water quality to prevent diarrhoeal disease: to prevent diarrhoeal disease:
a systematic review and a systematic review and case study in Colombiacase study in Colombia
Thomas F. ClasenLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Expected reduction in diarrhoeal disease morbidity from Expected reduction in diarrhoeal disease morbidity from improvements in one or more components of water and improvements in one or more components of water and
Microbiological Microbiological Efficacy:Efficacy:CharincoCharinco, , BoliviaBolivia Mean Fecal Coliform Count
Charinco, Bolivia
917.88
405.59
167.12
375
797
0000
790
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Baseline March April June July
Sampling Period
Arit
hmet
ic M
ean
FC C
ount
Intervention Group
Control Group
Clasen T, Brown J, Suntura O, Collin S (2004). Safe household water treatment and storage using ceramic drip filters: a randomisedcontrolled trial in rural Bolivia. Water Sci & Tech 50(1): 111-115.
Health Impact: Health Impact: CharincoCharinco, Bolivia, Bolivia
Diarrhoeal Prevalence and 95%CI Charinco, Bolivia
22.7
18.820.3
23.1
21.3
4.1
11.39.7
22.1
4.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Baseline Week 7 Week 13 Week 19 Week 25
Surveillance Point
Perc
enta
ge P
reva
lenc
e (7
day
reca
ll)
Control
Intervention
In a six-month randomized controlled trial by First Water and Fundación SumajHuasi in Charinco, Bolivia, diarrhoea prevalence among filter users was 64% lessthan the control group (p<0.001). The reduction was 72% among children under 5(p<0.001)
(Clasen T, Brown J, Suntura O, Collin S, Cairncross S (2004). Reducing diarrhoea through the use of household-based ceramic water filters: a randomized, controlled field trial in rural Bolivia. Am J. Trop Med. & Hyg. 70(6):651-657
Health Impact: Health Impact: ChiChiññiriiri, Bolivia, Bolivia
In a five-month randomized controlled trial of a pilot intervention by Food for the Hungry, Int’l in rural Bolivia, locally-fabricated water filters using Brazilian ceramic elements were associated with a 45.3% reduction in diarrhoea compared to the control group (p=0.02)
Clasen T, Brown J, Collin S (2006) Preventing diarrhoea with household ceramic water filters: an assessment of a pilot project in Bolivia. Int’l J. Environ. Health Res. (in press)
““The encouraging results The encouraging results from studies of improved from studies of improved household water household water management provide a management provide a sufficient impetus for resufficient impetus for re--examining the potential examining the potential health impact of health impact of interventions to improve interventions to improve drinking water quality. . . . drinking water quality. . . . This type of analysis should This type of analysis should ultimately help refine the ultimately help refine the dominant paradigm, and dominant paradigm, and lead to more focused lead to more focused guidance on the potential guidance on the potential health impact of water health impact of water quality interventions.”quality interventions.”
Clasen T & Cairncross S (2004). Household water management: refining the dominant paradigm. Trop. Med. Int’l Health 9(2):1-5
Protocol for a Cochrane Review
Clasen T, Roberts I, Rabie T, CairncrossS (2004). Interventions to improve water qualtity for preventing diarrhoea. Cochrane Collaboration, 2004 Issue 2
Interventions at Interventions at SourceSource
Interventions at the Interventions at the HouseholdHousehold
Post Collection Recontamination of WaterPost Collection Recontamination of WaterSystematic review and metaSystematic review and meta--analysis of 57 studies measuring analysis of 57 studies measuring bacteria counts for source water bacteria counts for source water and stored water in the home.and stored water in the home.Results: The bacteriological Results: The bacteriological quality of drinking water quality of drinking water significantly declined after significantly declined after collection in many settings. collection in many settings. Conclusion: Policies that aim to Conclusion: Policies that aim to improve water quality through improve water quality through source improvements may be source improvements may be compromised by postcompromised by post--collection collection contamination. Safer household contamination. Safer household water storage and treatment is water storage and treatment is recommended to prevent this, recommended to prevent this, together with pointtogether with point--ofof--use water use water quality monitoring.quality monitoring.*Wright J, Gundry S, Conroy R (2004). Household drinking water in developing countries: a systematic review of microbiological contamination between source and point-of-use. Tropical Med. Int’l Health9(1): 106-117
Esrey Update: Fewtrell et al.
Fewtrell L, Kaufmann R, Kay D, Enanoria W, Haller L, Colford J (2005). Water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions to reduce diarrhoea in developing countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect. Dis 5: 42-52.
Intervention Type Intervention Type (no. trials)(no. trials)
*Note that in a test for heterogeneity, a low p-value (eg <0.10) suggests an actual underlying difference in effect between studies that is unlikely to be attributable to chance.
Summary of EffectivenessSummary of Effectiveness——Under 5sUnder 5s
p=.007p=.0070.71 to 1.020.71 to 1.0215%15%0.850.85Source (4)Source (4)
p=0.37p=0.370.24 to 0.530.24 to 0.5364%64%0.360.36Filtration (5)Filtration (5)
p=0.004p=0.0040.67 to 0.860.67 to 0.8624%24%0.760.76Chlorination (12)Chlorination (12)
nanananananananaSolar Solar DisinfecDisinfec (0)(0)
p<0.00001p<0.000010.20 to 1.370.20 to 1.3748%48%0.520.52Flocc/DisinfFlocc/Disinf (7)(7)
p=0.10p=0.100.61 to 0.840.61 to 0.8429%29%0.710.71Flocc/DisinfFlocc/Disinf (6) ((6) (ex ex DoocyDoocy))
p<0.00001p<0.000010.39 to 0.810.39 to 0.8144%44%0.560.56Household (25)Household (25)
31%31%
% % ∆∆(1(1--RR)RR)
n.an.a..0.47 to 0.810.47 to 0.810.690.69ImprImpr. Storage (1). Storage (1)
Intervention Type Intervention Type (no. trials)(no. trials)
CartagenitaCartagenita
DabeibaDabeiba
Oxfam PilotOxfam Pilot----ColombiaColombia•Six-month (March-September 2004) randomized controlled trial of a pilot program using locally-fabricated ceramic water filter using Katadyn® candles
•Following a baseline survey to confirm no differences between persons in intervention (n=415) and control (n=265) groups, filters were randomly allocated to half of the households (n=130) in each of three communities
•Follow-up at monthly intervals to assess water quality and diarrhoea prevalence
Mean Mean ThermotolerantThermotolerant ((FaecalFaecal) ) ColiformColiform (and 95% CI) per 100ml(and 95% CI) per 100ml
PP--valuevalueInterventionInterventionControl Control SiteSite
Filters reduced the level of faecal bacteria at all sites, with an overall reduction in arithmetic mean TTC/100ml of 75.3%. However, only in Cartagenita did the filters eliminate all TTC in product water.
47.7% and 24.2% of the samples from the intervention group had no detectible TTC/100ml or conformed to WHO limits for “low risk” (1--10 TTC/100ml), respectively, compared to just 0.9% and 7.3% for control group samples.
Overall, prevalence of diarrhoea was 60% less among households using filters than control households (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.25,0.63, P < 0.0001). However, the microbiological performance andprotective effect of the filters was not uniform throughout the study communities, and corresponded with microbial performance.
Clasen T, Garcia Parra G, Boisson S, Collin S. Household-based ceramic water filters for the prevention of diarrhoea: a randomized, controlled trial of a pilot program in Colombia. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 73(4):790-95
Summary and ConclusionsSummary and ConclusionsInterventions to improve water quality are effective in Interventions to improve water quality are effective in preventing preventing diarrhoealdiarrhoeal disease, a major killer of children disease, a major killer of children under 5 years of ageunder 5 years of ageInterventions at the household level are about twice as Interventions at the household level are about twice as effective as those at the sourceeffective as those at the sourceEffectiveness was conditioned upon sufficient water Effectiveness was conditioned upon sufficient water quantity, and increased with compliance and improved quantity, and increased with compliance and improved sanitation sanitation In a pilot program in Colombia by Oxfam GB, the filters In a pilot program in Colombia by Oxfam GB, the filters were associated with a 75.3% reduction in the mean were associated with a 75.3% reduction in the mean faecalfaecal bacteria in drinking water and a 60% reduction in bacteria in drinking water and a 60% reduction in diarrhoeadiarrhoeaVariation in results by setting suggests that actual Variation in results by setting suggests that actual effectiveness may depend on local conditions (exposure effectiveness may depend on local conditions (exposure to other sources of transmission) and programmatic to other sources of transmission) and programmatic support to ensure compliancesupport to ensure compliance
Interventions to Improve Water Interventions to Improve Water Quality for the Prevention of Quality for the Prevention of
Diarrhoeal Disease: Diarrhoeal Disease: A CostA Cost--Effectiveness AnalysisEffectiveness Analysis
Thomas Clasen, Damian Walker, Thomas Clasen, Damian Walker, Laurence Haller & Sandy Laurence Haller & Sandy CairncrossCairncross
Interventions to Improve Water Interventions to Improve Water Quality for the Prevention of Quality for the Prevention of
Diarrhoeal Disease: Diarrhoeal Disease: A CostA Cost--Effectiveness AnalysisEffectiveness Analysis
Thomas Clasen, Damian Walker, Thomas Clasen, Damian Walker, Laurence Haller & Sandy Laurence Haller & Sandy CairncrossCairncross
OutlineOutline
Description of water quality interventions in Description of water quality interventions in preventing diarrhoeapreventing diarrhoea
source and household interventionssource and household interventions
Overview of methodsOverview of methodsEstimates of costEstimates of costEstimates of effectiveness and Estimates of effectiveness and DALYsDALYs avertedavertedCE resultsCE resultsLimitations and QualificationsLimitations and Qualifications
Overview of methodsOverview of methods
WHO Generalized CEAWHO Generalized CEAInterventions: 3 source and 4 household approaches to Interventions: 3 source and 4 household approaches to improving microbial quality of drinking water improving microbial quality of drinking water Cost data: WHO data and generic cost protocol sent to Cost data: WHO data and generic cost protocol sent to 12 12 programmeprogramme implementersimplementersEffectiveness data: Cochrane Review Effectiveness data: Cochrane Review Population model: WHO PopModPopulation model: WHO PopModSummary measure: $ per DALY averted for 11 WHO Summary measure: $ per DALY averted for 11 WHO epidemiological subepidemiological sub--regionsregions
today, results for today, results for AfrAfr--E and SearE and Sear--DD
WHO epidemiological subWHO epidemiological sub--regionsregions
US$ per person covered per year estimatedUS$ per person covered per year estimatedFor each intervention, a mean and range of costs For each intervention, a mean and range of costs were computedwere computedAssumed linear cost of scaling up to 100% Assumed linear cost of scaling up to 100% coverage (minimal fixed costs)coverage (minimal fixed costs)
Sources for Cost DataSources for Cost Data
Source (regional mean cost of communal Source (regional mean cost of communal tapstandtapstand, , borehole and dug well based on WHO data)borehole and dug well based on WHO data)HouseholdHousehold
chlorination (estimates from 17 country programmes)chlorination (estimates from 17 country programmes)filtration (estimates from Cambodia and Bolivia programmes)filtration (estimates from Cambodia and Bolivia programmes)solar disinfection (estimates from 7 country programmes)solar disinfection (estimates from 7 country programmes)flocculation / disinfection (estimates from 5 country flocculation / disinfection (estimates from 5 country programmes) programmes)
Summary of Cost EstimatesSummary of Cost Estimates
Assumes all the household interventions are mutually Assumes all the household interventions are mutually exclusive, i.e. if one is chosen another cannot beexclusive, i.e. if one is chosen another cannot beFlocculation / disinfection was (strongly) dominated by Flocculation / disinfection was (strongly) dominated by the three other household interventions (solar the three other household interventions (solar disinfection, chlorination and filtration) in both regions, disinfection, chlorination and filtration) in both regions, i.e. they were all more effective i.e. they were all more effective andand less costlyless costlySolar disinfection was (weakly) dominated by Solar disinfection was (weakly) dominated by chlorination in both regions, but this assumes it is chlorination in both regions, but this assumes it is possible to deliver chlorination to less people without possible to deliver chlorination to less people without any change in CEany change in CE
Interpreting CE dataInterpreting CE data
Following the recommendation of the CMH, Following the recommendation of the CMH, WHO uses the following categories:WHO uses the following categories:
$ per DALY averted < GNI per capita = highly CE$ per DALY averted < GNI per capita = highly CE$ per DALY averted 1$ per DALY averted 1--3 * GNI per capita = CE3 * GNI per capita = CE$ per DALY averted > 3* GNI per capita = not CE$ per DALY averted > 3* GNI per capita = not CE
AfrAfr--E GNI per capita: $369E GNI per capita: $369SearSear--D GNI per capita: $276D GNI per capita: $276
Data suggest interventions to improve water Data suggest interventions to improve water quality are:quality are:
highly CE in highly CE in AfrAfr--E and SearE and Sear--DD
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
CDC (S. CDC (S. LubyLuby, R. Quick J. Crump, T. Chiller, E. , R. Quick J. Crump, T. Chiller, E. MintzMintz))Proctor & Gamble (G. Proctor & Gamble (G. AllgoodAllgood, B. Keswick), B. Keswick)WHO (J. Bartram, B. Gordon, L. Haller)WHO (J. Bartram, B. Gordon, L. Haller)UC Berkeley (J. UC Berkeley (J. ColfordColford))University of Wales (L. University of Wales (L. FewtrellFewtrell))Colleagues at LSHTM (V. Curtis, I. Roberts, T. Colleagues at LSHTM (V. Curtis, I. Roberts, T. RabieRabie, L. Smith, W. Schmidt, S. Thomas), L. Smith, W. Schmidt, S. Thomas)
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsOxfam GB Colombia (G. Garcia Oxfam GB Colombia (G. Garcia ParraParra, F. Vidal, LM , F. Vidal, LM LondonaoLondonao, T. Forster, A , T. Forster, A BastableBastable) ) CDC (S. CDC (S. LubyLuby, R. Quick J. Crump, T. Chiller, E. , R. Quick J. Crump, T. Chiller, E. MintzMintz))Proctor & Gamble (G. Proctor & Gamble (G. AllgoodAllgood, B. Keswick), B. Keswick)WHO (J. WHO (J. BartramBartram, B. Gordon, L. Haller), B. Gordon, L. Haller)Johns Hopkins University (S. Johns Hopkins University (S. DoocyDoocy))University of Bristol (S. Gundry, J. Wright)University of Bristol (S. Gundry, J. Wright)UC Berkeley (J. UC Berkeley (J. ColfordColford))University of Wales (L. University of Wales (L. FewtrellFewtrell))University of North Carolina (M. University of North Carolina (M. SobseySobsey, J. Brown), J. Brown)Colleagues at LSHTM (S. Colleagues at LSHTM (S. CairncrossCairncross, V. Curtis, I. , V. Curtis, I. Roberts, T. Roberts, T. RabieRabie, L. Smith, W. Schmidt, S. Thomas), L. Smith, W. Schmidt, S. Thomas)