Implementing a crèche-based community drowning programme in rural Bangladesh: a process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Living and environmental conditions in rural Bangladesh expose children to drowning. The Anchal programme protects children through crèche-based supervision in an enclosed space run by locally recruited carers. It is unclear under what conditions the programme best operates to maximise protection. We conducted a process evaluation of Anchal to determine enabling factors and challenges to implementation. METHODS: Quantitative programme data were analysed to calculate metrics including child participation and fidelity of implementation to defined processes. Qualitative data collection with programme participants and implementers provided insights into barriers and enablers of implementation. Analysis was guided by the UK Medical Research Council's process evaluation framework. RESULTS: Anchal operated 400 centres with an average of 22.2 children enrolled, as per target. However, daily attendance averaged lower than the 80% target. Children aged 1-2 years old, who are most at risk of drowning, were least likely to enrol and attend regularly due to low engagement with activities and parental concerns for safety. Greater distances and lower educational attainment in some regions reduced attendance and increased carer attrition. CONCLUSIONS: The Anchal programme met most programme delivery targets. However, programme success could be improved through increasing supervision, providing communication training for implementing staff, designing programmes for children aged 1-2 years old, encouraging community ownership and providing child pick-up services. These contextual solutions can be adapted to similar programmes operating through grassroots-level engagement and recruitment of community health workers, to maximise their effectiveness and sustainability.

Could Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizer Be an Option for Hand Hygiene for Households in Rural Bangladesh?

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), hand sanitizer may be a convenient alternative to soap and water to increase hand hygiene practices. We explored perceptions, acceptability, and use of hand sanitizer in rural Bangladesh. We enrolled 120 households from three rural villages. Promoters distributed free alcohol-based hand sanitizer, installed handwashing stations (bucket with tap, stand, basin, and bottle for soapy water), and conducted household visits and community meetings. During Phase 1, promoters recommended handwashing with soap or soapy water, or hand sanitizer after defecation, after cleaning a child's anus/feces, and before food preparation. In Phase 2, they recommended separate key times for hand sanitizer: before touching a child ≤ 6 months and after returning home. Three to 4 months after each intervention phase, we conducted a survey, in-depth interviews, and group discussions with child caregivers and male household members. After Phase 1, 82/89 (92%) households reported handwashing with soap after defecation versus 38 (43%) reported hand sanitizer use. Participants thought soap and water removed dirt from their hands, whereas hand sanitizer killed germs. In Phase 2, 76/87 (87%) reported using hand sanitizer after returning home and 71/87 (82%) before touching a child ≤ 6 months. Qualitative study participants reported that Phase 2-recommended times for hand sanitizer use were acceptable, but handwashing with soap was preferred over hand sanitizer when there was uncertainty over choosing between the two. Hand sanitizer use was liked by household members and has potential for use in LMICs, including during the coronavirus pandemic.

Nonrandomized Trial of Feasibility and Acceptability of Strategies for Promotion of Soapy Water as a Handwashing Agent in Rural Bangladesh.

We conducted a nonrandomized trial of strategies to promote soapy water for handwashing in rural Bangladesh and measured uptake. We enrolled households with children < 3 years for three progressively intensive study arms: promotion of soapy water (N = 120), soapy water promotion plus handwashing stations (N = 103), and soapy water promotion, stations plus detergent refills (N = 90); we also enrolled control households (N = 72). Our handwashing stations included tap-fitted buckets and soapy water bottles. Community promoters visited households and held community meetings to demonstrate soapy water preparation and promote handwashing at key times. Field workers measured uptake 4 months later. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions assessed factors associated with uptake. More households had soapy water at the handwashing place in progressively intensive arms: 18% (promotion), 60% (promotion plus station), and 71% (promotion, station with refills). Compared with the promotion-only arm, more households that received stations had soapy water at the primary handwashing station (44%, P ≤ 0.001; 71%, P < 0.001 with station plus detergent refill). Qualitative findings highlighted several dimensions that affected use: contextual (shared courtyard), psychosocial (perceived value), and technology dimensions (ease of use, convenience). Soapy water may increase habitual handwashing by addressing barriers of cost and availability of handwashing agents near water sources. Further research should inform optimal strategies to scale-up soapy water as a handwashing agent to study health impact.