Resources and Geographic Access to Care for Severe Pediatric Pneumonia in Four Resource-limited Settings.

Rationale: Pneumonia is the leading cause of death in children worldwide. Identifying and appropriately managing severe pneumonia in a timely manner improves outcomes. Little is known about the readiness of healthcare facilities to manage severe pediatric pneumonia in low-resource settings. Objectives: As part of the HAPIN (Household Air Pollution Intervention Network) trial, we sought to identify healthcare facilities that were adequately resourced to manage severe pediatric pneumonia in Jalapa, Guatemala (J-GUA); Puno, Peru (P-PER); Kayonza, Rwanda (K-RWA); and Tamil Nadu, India (T-IND). We conducted a facility-based survey of available infrastructure, staff, equipment, and medical consumables. Facilities were georeferenced, and a road network analysis was performed. Measurements and Main Results: Of the 350 healthcare facilities surveyed, 13% had adequate resources to manage severe pneumonia, 37% had pulse oximeters, and 44% had supplemental oxygen. Mean (±SD) travel time to an adequately resourced facility was 41 ± 19 minutes in J-GUA, 99 ± 64 minutes in P-PER, 40 ± 19 minutes in K-RWA, and 31 ± 19 minutes in T-IND. Expanding pulse oximetry coverage to all facilities reduced travel time by 44% in J-GUA, 29% in P-PER, 29% in K-RWA, and 11% in T-IND (all P < 0.001). Conclusions: Most healthcare facilities in low-resource settings of the HAPIN study area were inadequately resourced to care for severe pediatric pneumonia. Early identification of cases and timely referral is paramount. The provision of pulse oximeters to all health facilities may be an effective approach to identify cases earlier and refer them for care and in a timely manner.

A risk assessment tool for resumption of research activities during the COVID-19 pandemic for field trials in low resource settings.

RATIONALE: The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has suspended many non-COVID-19 related research activities. Where restarting research activities is permitted, investigators need to evaluate the risks and benefits of resuming data collection and adapt procedures to minimize risk. OBJECTIVES: In the context of the multicountry Household Air Pollution Intervention (HAPIN) trial conducted in rural, low-resource settings, we developed a framework to assess the risk of each trial activity and to guide protective measures. Our goal is to maximize the integrity of reseach aims while minimizing infection risk based on the latest scientific understanding of the virus. METHODS: We drew on a combination of expert consultations, risk assessment frameworks, institutional guidance and literature to develop our framework. We then systematically graded clinical, behavioral, laboratory and field environmental health research activities in four countries for both adult and child subjects using this framework. National and local government recommendations provided the minimum safety guidelines for our work. RESULTS: Our framework assesses risk based on staff proximity to the participant, exposure time between staff and participants, and potential viral aerosolization while performing the activity. For each activity, one of four risk levels, from minimal to unacceptable, is assigned and guidance on protective measures is provided. Those activities that can potentially aerosolize the virus are deemed the highest risk. CONCLUSIONS: By applying a systematic, procedure-specific approach to risk assessment for each trial activity, we were able to protect our participants and research team and to uphold our ability to deliver on the research commitments we have made to our staff, participants, local communities, and funders. This framework can be tailored to other research studies conducted in similar settings during the current pandemic, as well as potential future outbreaks with similar transmission dynamics. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov NCT02944682 on October 26. 2016 .

A Risk Assessment Tool for Resumption of Research Activities During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

RATIONALE: The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has suspended many non-COVID-19 related research activities. Where restarting research activities is permitted, investigators need to evaluate the risks and benefits of resuming data collection and adapt procedures to minimize risk. OBJECTIVES: In the context of the multicountry Household Air Pollution Intervention (HAPIN) trial, we developed a framework to assess the risk of each trial activity and to guide protective measures. Our goal is to maximize integrity of reseach aims while minimizing infection risk based on the latest understanding of the virus. METHODS: We drew on a combination of expert consultations, risk assessment frameworks, institutional guidance and literature to develop our framework. We then systematically graded clinical, behavioral, laboratory and field environmental health research activities in four countries for both adult and child subjects using this framework. RESULTS: Our framework assesses risk based on staff proximity to the participant, exposure time between staff and participants, and potential aerosolization while performing the activity. One of of four risk levels, from minimal to unacceptable, is assigned and guidance on protective measures is provided. Those activities which can potentially aerosolize the virus are deemed the highest risk. CONCLUSIONS: By applying a systematic, procedure-specific approach to risk assessment for each trial activity, we can compare trial activities using the same criteria. This approach allows us to protect our participants and research team and to uphold our ability to deliver on the research commitments we have made to our participants, local communities, and funders. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02944682).

Air Pollutant Exposure and Stove Use Assessment Methods for the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network (HAPIN) Trial.

BACKGROUND: High quality personal exposure data is fundamental to understanding the health implications of household energy interventions, interpreting analyses across assigned study arms, and characterizing exposure-response relationships for household air pollution. This paper describes the exposure data collection for the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network (HAPIN), a multicountry randomized controlled trial of liquefied petroleum gas stoves and fuel among 3,200 households in India, Rwanda, Guatemala, and Peru. OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives of the exposure assessment are to estimate the exposure contrast achieved following a clean fuel intervention and to provide data for analyses of exposure-response relationships across a range of personal exposures. METHODS: Exposure measurements are being conducted over the 3-y time frame of the field study. We are measuring fine particulate matter [PM < 2.5µm in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5)] with the Enhanced Children's MicroPEM™ (RTI International), carbon monoxide (CO) with the USB-EL-CO (Lascar Electronics), and black carbon with the OT21 transmissometer (Magee Scientific) in pregnant women, adult women, and children <1 year of age, primarily via multiple 24-h personal assessments (three, six, and three measurements, respectively) over the course of the 18-month follow-up period using lightweight monitors. For children we are using an indirect measurement approach, combining data from area monitors and locator devices worn by the child. For a subsample (up to 10%) of the study population, we are doubling the frequency of measurements in order to estimate the accuracy of subject-specific typical exposure estimates. In addition, we are conducting ambient air monitoring to help characterize potential contributions of PM2.5 exposure from background concentration. Stove use monitors (Geocene) are being used to assess compliance with the intervention, given that stove stacking (use of traditional stoves in addition to the intervention gas stove) may occur. CONCLUSIONS: The tools and approaches being used for HAPIN to estimate personal exposures build on previous efforts and take advantage of new technologies. In addition to providing key personal exposure data for this study, we hope the application and learnings from our exposure assessment will help inform future efforts to characterize exposure to household air pollution and for other contexts. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6422.

Consistency of Use and Effectiveness of Household Water Treatment among Indian Households Claiming to Treat Their Water.

Household water treatment (HWT) can improve drinking water quality and prevent disease if used correctly and consistently by populations at risk. Current international monitoring estimates by the Joint Monitoring Programme for water and sanitation suggest that at least 1.1 billion people practice HWT. These estimates, however, are based on surveys that may overstate the level of consistent use and do not address microbial effectiveness. We sought to assess how HWT is practiced among households identified as HWT users according to these monitoring standards. After a baseline survey (urban: 189 households, rural: 210 households) to identify HWT users, 83 urban and 90 rural households were followed up for 6 weeks. Consistency of reported HWT practices was high in both urban (100%) and rural (93.3%) settings, as was availability of treated water (based on self-report) in all three sampling points (urban: 98.8%, rural: 76.0%). Nevertheless, only 13.7% of urban and 25.8% of rural households identified at baseline as users of adequate HWT had water free of thermotolerant coliforms at all three water sampling points. Our findings raise questions about the value of the data gathered through the international monitoring of HWT as predictors of water quality in the home, as well as questioning the ability of HWT, as actually practiced by vulnerable populations, to reduce exposure to waterborne diseases.

Behavioral Reactivity Associated With Electronic Monitoring of Environmental Health Interventions--A Cluster Randomized Trial with Water Filters and Cookstoves.

Subject reactivity--when research participants change their behavior in response to being observed--has been documented showing the effect of human observers. Electronics sensors are increasingly used to monitor environmental health interventions, but the effect of sensors on behavior has not been assessed. We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial in Rwanda among 170 households (70 blinded to the presence of the sensor, 100 open) testing whether awareness of an electronic monitor would result in a difference in weekly use of household water filters and improved cookstoves over a four-week surveillance period. A 63% increase in number of uses of the water filter per week between the groups was observed in week 1, an average of 4.4 times in the open group and 2.83 times in the blind group, declining in week 4 to an insignificant 55% difference of 2.82 uses in the open, and 1.93 in the blind. There were no significant differences in the number of stove uses per week between the two groups. For both filters and stoves, use decreased in both groups over four-week installation periods. This study suggests behavioral monitoring should attempt to account for reactivity to awareness of electronic monitors that persists for weeks or more.

Consistency of Use and Effectiveness of Household Water Treatment Practices Among Urban and Rural Populations Claiming to Treat Their Drinking Water at Home: A Case Study in Zambia.

Household water treatment (HWT) can improve drinking water quality and prevent disease, if used correctly and consistently. While international monitoring suggests that 1.8 billion people practice HWT, these estimates are based on household surveys that may overstate the level of consistent use and do not address microbiological effectiveness. We sought to examine how HWT is practiced among households identified as HWT users according to international monitoring standards. Case studies were conducted in urban and rural Zambia. After a baseline survey (urban: 203 households, rural: 276 households) to identify HWT users, 95 urban and 82 rural households were followed up for 6 weeks. Consistency of HWT reporting was low; only 72.6% of urban and 50.0% of rural households reported to be HWT users in the subsequent visit. Similarly, availability of treated water was low, only 23.3% and 4.2% of urban and rural households, respectively, had treated water on all visits. Drinking water was significantly worse than source water in both settings. Only 19.6% of urban and 2.4% of rural households had drinking water free of thermotolerant coliforms on all visits. Our findings raise questions about the value of the data gathered through the international monitoring of HWT practices as predictors of water quality in the home.

The geographic and demographic scope of shared sanitation: an analysis of national survey data from low- and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVE: A large and growing proportion of the world's population rely on shared sanitation facilities that have historically been excluded from international targets due to concerns about acceptability, hygiene and access. In connection with a proposed change in such policy, we undertook this study to describe the prevalence and scope of households that report relying on shared sanitation and to characterise them in terms of selected socio-economic and demographic covariates. METHODS: We extracted data from the most recent national household surveys of 84 low- and middle-income countries from Demographic and Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys. We describe the prevalence of shared sanitation and explore associations between specified covariates and reliance on shared sanitation using log-binomial regression. RESULTS: While household reliance on any type of shared sanitation is relatively rare in Europe (2.5%) and the Eastern Mediterranean (7.7%), it is not uncommon in the Americas (14.2%), Western Pacific (16.4%) and South-East Asia (31.3%), and it is most prevalent in Africa (44.6%) where many shared facilities do not meet the definition of 'improved' even if they were not shared (17.7%). Overall, shared sanitation is more common in urban (28.6%) than in rural settings (25.9%), even after adjusting for wealth. While results vary geographically, people who rely on shared sanitation tend to be poorer, reside in urban areas and live in households with more young children and headed by people with no formal education. Data from 21 countries suggest that most sharing is with neighbours and other acquaintances (82.0%) rather than the public. CONCLUSIONS: The determinants of shared sanitation identified from these data suggest potential confounders that may explain the apparent increased health risk from sharing and should be considered in any policy recommendation. Both geographic and demographic heterogeneity indicate the need for further research to support a change in policies.