The state of reporting context and implementation in peer-reviewed evaluations of water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions: A scoping review

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Jonny Crocker, Emily A. Ogutu, Jedidiah Snyder, Matthew C. Freeman
{"title":"The state of reporting context and implementation in peer-reviewed evaluations of water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions: A scoping review","authors":"Jonny Crocker,&nbsp;Emily A. Ogutu,&nbsp;Jedidiah Snyder,&nbsp;Matthew C. Freeman","doi":"10.1016/j.ijheh.2024.114363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>To accurately assess evidence from environmental and public health field trials, context and implementation details of the intervention must be weighed with trial results; yet these details are under and inconsistently reported for water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), limiting the external validity of the evidence.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>To quantify the level of reporting of context and implementation in WASH evaluations, we conducted a scoping review of the 40 most cited evaluations of WASH interventions published in the last 10 years (2012–2022). We applied criteria derived from a review of existing reporting guidance from other sectors including healthcare and implementation science. We subsequently reviewed main articles, supplements, protocols, and other associated resources to assess thoroughness of context and implementation reporting.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the final 25 reporting items we searched for, four—intervention name, approach, location, and temporality—were reported by all studies. Five items—theory, implementer qualifications, dose intensity, targeting, and measured fidelity—were not reported in over a third of reviewed articles. Only two studies (5%) reported all items in our checklist. Only 74% of items were found in the main article, while the rest were found in separate papers (7%) or not at all (19%).</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Inconsistent reporting of WASH implementation illustrates a major challenge in the sector. It is difficult to know what interventions are actually being evaluated and how to compare evaluation results. This inconsistent and incomplete implementation reporting limits the ability of programmers and policy makers to apply the available evidence to their contexts. Standardized reporting guidelines would improve the application of the evidence for WASH field evaluations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":13994,"journal":{"name":"International journal of hygiene and environmental health","volume":"259 ","pages":"Article 114363"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of hygiene and environmental health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463924000440","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

To accurately assess evidence from environmental and public health field trials, context and implementation details of the intervention must be weighed with trial results; yet these details are under and inconsistently reported for water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), limiting the external validity of the evidence.

Methods

To quantify the level of reporting of context and implementation in WASH evaluations, we conducted a scoping review of the 40 most cited evaluations of WASH interventions published in the last 10 years (2012–2022). We applied criteria derived from a review of existing reporting guidance from other sectors including healthcare and implementation science. We subsequently reviewed main articles, supplements, protocols, and other associated resources to assess thoroughness of context and implementation reporting.

Results

Of the final 25 reporting items we searched for, four—intervention name, approach, location, and temporality—were reported by all studies. Five items—theory, implementer qualifications, dose intensity, targeting, and measured fidelity—were not reported in over a third of reviewed articles. Only two studies (5%) reported all items in our checklist. Only 74% of items were found in the main article, while the rest were found in separate papers (7%) or not at all (19%).

Discussion

Inconsistent reporting of WASH implementation illustrates a major challenge in the sector. It is difficult to know what interventions are actually being evaluated and how to compare evaluation results. This inconsistent and incomplete implementation reporting limits the ability of programmers and policy makers to apply the available evidence to their contexts. Standardized reporting guidelines would improve the application of the evidence for WASH field evaluations.

Abstract Image

经同行评审的水、环境卫生和个人卫生干预措施评估中对背景和实施情况的报告状况:范围界定审查
导言为了准确评估环境和公共卫生现场试验的证据,必须将干预措施的背景和实施细节与试验结果进行权衡;然而,这些细节在水、环境卫生和个人卫生(WASH)方面的报告较少且不一致,从而限制了证据的外部有效性。我们采用的标准来自于对医疗保健和实施科学等其他领域现有报告指南的审查。我们随后审查了主要文章、补充材料、协议和其他相关资源,以评估背景和实施报告的全面性。结果 在我们搜索的最后 25 个报告项目中,所有研究都报告了 4 个项目--干预名称、方法、地点和时间。在超过三分之一的综述文章中,有五项--理论、实施者资质、剂量强度、目标定位和测量保真度--未被报告。只有两项研究(5%)报告了我们核对表中的所有项目。只有 74% 的项目出现在主要文章中,其余的出现在单独的论文中(7%)或根本没有出现(19%)。很难知道哪些干预措施实际上正在接受评估,也很难知道如何比较评估结果。这种不一致和不完整的实施报告限制了计划制定者和政策制定者将现有证据应用于实际情况的能力。标准化的报告准则将改善讲卫生运动实地评估证据的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.50
自引率
5.00%
发文量
151
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health serves as a multidisciplinary forum for original reports on exposure assessment and the reactions to and consequences of human exposure to the biological, chemical, and physical environment. Research reports, short communications, reviews, scientific comments, technical notes, and editorials will be peer-reviewed before acceptance for publication. Priority will be given to articles on epidemiological aspects of environmental toxicology, health risk assessments, susceptible (sub) populations, sanitation and clean water, human biomonitoring, environmental medicine, and public health aspects of exposure-related outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信