Does WASH FIT improve water, sanitation, and hygiene and related health impacts in healthcare facilities? A systematic review.

Introduction: Environmental health services (e.g., water, sanitation, hygiene, cleaning, waste management) in healthcare facilities are important to improve health outcomes and strengthen health systems, but coverage gaps remain. The World Health Organization and United Nations Children's Fund developed WASH FIT, a quality improvement tool, to help assess and improve environmental health services. Fifty-three countries have adopted it. However, there is little evidence of its effectiveness. This systematic review evaluates whether WASH FIT improves environmental health services or associated health outcomes and impacts. Methods: We conducted database searches to identify relevant studies and extracted data on study design, healthcare facility characteristics, and inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts associated with WASH FIT. We summarized the findings using a logic model framework and narrative synthesis. Results: We included 31 studies in the review. Most inputs and activities were described qualitatively. Twenty-three studies reported quantitative outputs, primary WASH FIT indicator scores, and personnel trained on WASH FIT. Nine studies reported longitudinal data demonstrating changes in these outputs throughout WASH FIT implementation. Six studies reported quantitative outcomes measurements; the remainder described outcomes qualitatively or not at all. Common outcomes included allocated funding for environmental health services, community engagement, and government collaboration, changes in knowledge, attitudes, or practices among healthcare staff, patients, or community members, and policy changes. No studies directly measured impacts or evaluated WASH FIT against a rigorous control group. Conclusions: Available evidence is insufficient to evaluate WASH FIT's effects on outputs, outcomes, and impacts. Further effort is needed to comprehensively identify the inputs and activities required to implement WASH FIT and to draw specific links between changes in outputs, outcomes, and impacts. Short-term opportunities exist to improve evidence by more comprehensive reporting of WASH FIT assessments and exploiting data on health impacts within health management information systems. In the long term, we recommend experimental studies. This evidence is important to ensure that funding invested for WASH FIT implementation is used cost-effectively and that opportunities to adapt and refine WASH FIT are fully realized as it continues to grow in use and influence.

Effects of environmental conditions on healthcare worker wellbeing and quality of care: A qualitative study in Niger.

Environmental conditions (water, sanitation, hygiene, waste management, cleaning, energy, building design) are important for a safe and functional healthcare environment. Yet their full range of impacts are not well understood. In this study, we assessed the impact of environmental conditions on healthcare workers' wellbeing and quality of care, using qualitative interviews with 81 healthcare workers at 26 small healthcare facilities in rural Niger. We asked participants to report successes and challenges with environmental conditions and their impacts on wellbeing (physical, social, mental, and economic) and quality of care. We found that all environmental conditions contributed to healthcare workers' wellbeing and quality of care. The norm in facilities of our sample was poor environmental conditions, and thus participants primarily reported detrimental effects. We identified previously documented effects on physical health and safety from pathogen exposure, but also several novel effects on healthcare workers' mental and economic wellbeing and on efficiency, timeliness, and patient centeredness of care. Key wellbeing impacts included pathogen exposure for healthcare workers, stress from unsafe and chaotic working environments, staff dissatisfaction and retention challenges, out-of-pocket spending to avoid stockouts, and uncompensated labor. Key quality of care impacts included pathogen exposure for patients, healthcare worker time dedicated to non-medical tasks like water fetching (i.e., reduced efficiency), breakdowns and spoilage of equipment and supplies, and patient satisfaction with cleanliness and privacy. Inefficiency due to time lost and damaged supplies and equipment likely have substantial economic value and warrant greater consideration in research and policy making. Impacts on staff retention and care efficiency also have implications for health systems. We recommend that future research and decision making for policy and practice incorporate more holistic impact measures beyond just healthcare acquired infections and reconsider the substantial contribution that environmental conditions make to the safety of healthcare facilities and strength of health systems.

Implementing a Community-Led Arsenic Mitigation Intervention for Private Well Users in American Indian Communities: A Qualitative Evaluation of the Strong Heart Water Study Program.

Arsenic is a naturally occurring toxicant in groundwater, which increases cancer and cardiovascular disease risk. American Indian populations are disproportionately exposed to arsenic in drinking water. The Strong Heart Water Study (SHWS), through a community-centered approach for intervention development and implementation, delivered an arsenic mitigation program for private well users in American Indian communities. The SHWS program comprised community-led water arsenic testing, point-of-use arsenic filter installation, and a mobile health program to promote sustained filter use and maintenance (i.e., changing the filter cartridge). Half of enrolled households received additional in-person behavior change communication and videos. Our objectives for this study were to assess successes, barriers, and facilitators in the implementation, use, and maintenance of the program among implementers and recipients. We conducted 45 semi-structured interviews with implementers and SHWS program recipients. We analyzed barriers and facilitators using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Risks, Attitudes, Norms, Abilities, and Self-regulation model. At the implementer level, facilitators included building rapport and trust between implementers and participating households. Barriers included the remoteness of households, coordinating with community plumbers for arsenic filter installation, and difficulty securing a local supplier for replacement filter cartridges. At the recipient level, facilitators included knowledge of the arsenic health risks, perceived effectiveness of the filter, and visual cues to promote habit formation. Barriers included attitudes towards water taste and temperature and inability to procure or install replacement filter cartridges. This study offers insights into the successes and challenges of implementing an arsenic mitigation program tailored to American Indian households, which can inform future programs in partnership with these and potentially similar affected communities. Our study suggests that building credibility and trust between implementers and participants is important for the success of arsenic mitigation programs.

Adaptation in rural water, sanitation, and hygiene programs: A qualitative study in Nepal.

Adaptations are modifications made to programming to improve effectiveness or contextual fit, and are important for program improvement. However, adaptations can be detrimental if they do not preserve an intervention's underlying theory of change. We present a case study of 45 adaptations made to rural WaSH programming in Nepal, identified through qualitative interviews with implementers conducted in June through August 2019. For each adaptation, we characterized its target outcomes and implementers' motivations for making the adaptation, and we assessed the adaptation's intended and unintended effects on program quality. Participants described adaptations to both interventions (e.g., changes to hygiene promotion messages) and implementation strategies (e.g., sanctions to enforce toilet construction, such as denying work permits to households without a toilet). Adoption was the most common target outcome, specifically increasing toilet construction. Other target outcomes included feasibility of program delivery, acceptability of messages or WaSH products, reach of program activities in the community, and sustainability. Implementers were commonly motivated by intense pressure to meet national open defecation free targets. Most adaptations achieved their target outcomes. However, sanctions adaptations had substantial unintended negative effects. Implementers reported that sanctions were unpopular with communities and had poor sustainability. In contrast, non-sanctions adaptations that targeted outcomes of feasibility, acceptability, and sustainability had few unintended negative consequences. Our findings suggest that adaptations to promote rapid adoption of toilet construction do not consistently achieve sustained behavior change. Furthermore, adaptations to improve feasibility of program delivery or cost and acceptability of WaSH products can indirectly improve adoption even when it is not an explicit target outcome.

Adaptation of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Interventions: A Model and Scoping Review of Key Concepts and Tools.

Background: Safe water, sanitation, and hygiene (WaSH) is important for health, livelihoods, and economic development, but WaSH programs have often underdelivered on expected health benefits. Underperformance has been attributed partly to poor ability to retain effectiveness following adaptation to facilitate WaSH programs' implementation in diverse contexts. Adaptation of WaSH interventions is common but often not done systematically, leading to poor outcomes. Models and frameworks from the adaptation literature have potential to improve WaSH adaptation to facilitate implementation and retain effectiveness. However, these models and frameworks were designed in a healthcare context, and WaSH interventions are typically implemented outside traditional health system channels. The purpose of our work was to develop an adaptation model tailored specifically to the context of WaSH interventions. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to identify key adaptation steps and identify tools to support systematic adaptation. To identify relevant literature, we conducted a citation search based on three recently published reviews on adaptation. We also conducted a systematic database search for examples of WaSH adaptation. We developed a preliminary model based on steps commonly identified across models in adaptation literature, and then tailored the model to the WaSH context using studies yielded by our systematic search. We compiled a list of tools to support systematic data collection and decision-making throughout adaptation from all included studies. Results and Conclusions: Our model presents adaptation steps in five phases: intervention selection, assessment, preparation, implementation, and sustainment. Phases for assessment through sustainment are depicted as iterative, reflecting that once an intervention is selected, adaptation is a continual process. Our model reflects the specific context of WaSH by including steps to engage non-health and lay implementers and to build consensus among diverse stakeholders with potentially competing priorities. We build on prior adaptation literature by compiling tools to support systematic data collection and decision-making, and we describe how they can be used throughout adaptation steps. Our model is intended to improve program outcomes by systematizing adaptation processes and provides an example of how systematic adaptation can occur for interventions with health goals but that are implemented outside conventional health system channels.

A toolkit for costing environmental health services in healthcare facilities.

Environmental health services (EHS) are critical for safe and functional healthcare facilities (HCFs). Understanding costs is important for improving and sustaining access to EHS in HCFs, yet the understanding of costs is poor and no tools exist to specifically support costing EHS in HCFs in low- and middle-income countries. We developed a toolkit to guide the following steps of costing EHS in HCFs: defining costing goals, developing and executing a data collection plan, calculating costs, and disseminating findings. The costing toolkit is divided into eight step-by-step modules with instructions, fillable worksheets, and guidance for effective data collection. It is designed for use by diverse stakeholders involved in funding, implementation, and management of EHS in HCFs and can be used by stakeholders with no prior costing experience. This paper describes the development, structure, and functionality of the toolkit; provides guidance for its application; and identifies good practices for costing, including pilot testing data collection tools and iterating the data collection process, involving diverse stakeholders, considering long-term costs, and disaggregating environmental costs in records to facilitate future costing. The toolkit itself is provided in the Supplementary Material.

Successes, challenges, and support for men versus women implementers in water, sanitation, and hygiene programs: A qualitative study in rural Nepal.

INTRODUCTION: Women's active participation is important for inclusive water, sanitation, and hygiene (WaSH) programs, yet gender roles that limit women's access to formal education and employment may reduce their skills, experience, and capacity for implementation. This paper explores differences between men and women implementers of rural WaSH programs in implementation approaches, challenges, and sources of support for implementation, and success in achieving program quality outcomes. METHODS: We interviewed 18 men and 13 women in community-based implementation roles in four districts of Nepal. We identified challenges and sources of support for implementation in four domains-informational, tangible, emotional, or companionship-following social support theory. We assessed successes at achieving intermediate implementation outcomes (e.g., adoption, appropriateness, sustainability) and long-term intervention outcomes (e.g., community cleanliness, health improvements). RESULTS: Women used relational approaches and leveraged social ties to encourage behavior change, while men used formative research to identify behavior drivers and sanctions to drive behavior change. Women experienced stigma for working outside the home, which was perceived as a traditionally male role. Companionship and emotional support from other women and male community leaders helped mitigate stigma and lack of informational support. Women were also more likely to receive no or low financial compensation for work and had fewer opportunities for feedback and training compared to men. Despite lack of support, women were motivated to work by a desire to build their social status, gain new knowledge, and break conventional gender roles. CONCLUSIONS: Both men and women perceived that women were more effective than men at mobilizing widespread, sustained WaSH improvements, which was attributed to their successes using relational approaches and leveraging social ties to deliver acceptable and appropriate messages. Their skills for motivating collective action indicate that they can be highly effective WaSH implementers despite lack of technical experience and training, and that women's active participation is important for achieving transformative community change.

Development and application of tools to cost the delivery of environmental health services in healthcare facilities: a financial analysis in urban Malawi.

BACKGROUND: Environmental health services (EHS) in healthcare facilities (HCFs) are critical for providing a safe, functional healthcare environment, but little is known about their costs. Poor understanding of costs impedes progress towards universal access of EHS in HCFs. We developed frameworks of essential expenses required to provide EHS and conducted an ex-post financial analysis of EHS in a network of medical research and training facilities in Lilongwe, Malawi, serving an estimated 42,000 patients annually through seven outpatient buildings. METHODS: We estimated the cost of providing the following EHS: water, sanitation, hygiene, personal protective equipment use at the point of care, waste management, cleaning, laundry, and vector control. We developed frameworks of essential outputs and inputs for each EHS through review of international guidelines and standards, which we used to identify expenses required for EHS delivery and evaluate the completeness of costs data in our case study. For costing, we use a mixed-methods approach, applying qualitative interviews to understand facility context and review of electronic records to determine costs. We calculated initial costs to establish EHS and annual operations and maintenance. RESULTS: Available records contained little information on the upfront, capital costs associated with establishing EHS. Annual operations and maintenance totaled USD 220,427 for all EHS across all facilities (USD 5.21 per patient encounter), although costs of many essential inputs were missing from records. Annual operations and maintenance costs were highest for cleaning (USD 69,372) and waste management (USD 46,752). DISCUSSION: Missing expenses suggests that documented costs are substantial underestimates. Costs to establish services were missing predominantly because purchases pre-dated electronic records. Annual operations and maintenance costs were incomplete primarily because administrative records did not record sufficient detail to disaggregate and attribute expenses. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic health information systems have potential to support efficient data collection. However, we found that existing records systems were decentralized and poorly suited to identify EHS costs. Our research suggests a need to better code and disaggregate EHS expenses to properly leverage records for costing. Frameworks developed in this study are a potential tool to develop more accurate estimates of the cost of providing EHS in HCFs.

Safe Healthcare Facilities: A Systematic Review on the Costs of Establishing and Maintaining Environmental Health in Facilities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

A hygienic environment is essential to provide quality patient care and prevent healthcare-acquired infections. Understanding costs is important to budget for service delivery, but costs evidence for environmental health services (EHS) in healthcare facilities (HCFs) is lacking. We present the first systematic review to evaluate the costs of establishing, operating, and maintaining EHS in HCFs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We systematically searched for studies costing water, sanitation, hygiene, cleaning, waste management, personal protective equipment, vector control, laundry, and lighting in LMICs. Our search yielded 36 studies that reported costs for 51 EHS. There were 3 studies that reported costs for water, 3 for sanitation, 4 for hygiene, 13 for waste management, 16 for cleaning, 2 for personal protective equipment, 10 for laundry, and none for lighting or vector control. Quality of evidence was low. Reported costs were rarely representative of the total costs of EHS provision. Unit costs were infrequently reported. This review identifies opportunities to improve costing research through efforts to categorize and disaggregate EHS costs, greater dissemination of existing unpublished data, improvements to indicators to monitor EHS demand and quality necessary to contextualize costs, and development of frameworks to define EHS needs and essential inputs to guide future costing.

Budgeting for Environmental Health Services in Healthcare Facilities: A Ten-Step Model for Planning and Costing.

Environmental health services (EHS) in healthcare facilities (HCFs) are critical for safe care provision, yet their availability in low- and middle-income countries is low. A poor understanding of costs hinders progress towards adequate provision. Methods are inconsistent and poorly documented in costing literature, suggesting opportunities to improve evidence. The goal of this research was to develop a model to guide budgeting for EHS in HCFs. Based on 47 studies selected through a systematic review, we identified discrete budgeting steps, developed codes to define each step, and ordered steps into a model. We identified good practices based on a review of additional selected guidelines for costing EHS and HCFs. Our model comprises ten steps in three phases: planning, data collection, and synthesis. Costing-stakeholders define the costing purpose, relevant EHS, and cost scope; assess the EHS delivery context; develop a costing plan; and identify data sources (planning). Stakeholders then execute their costing plan and evaluate the data quality (data collection). Finally, stakeholders calculate costs and disseminate findings (synthesis). We present three hypothetical costing examples and discuss good practices, including using costing frameworks, selecting appropriate indicators to measure the quantity and quality of EHS, and iterating planning and data collection to select appropriate costing approaches and identify data gaps.