The persistence of failure in water, sanitation and hygiene programming: a qualitative study.

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Dani J Barrington, Rebecca C Sindall, Annatoria Chinyama, Tracy Morse, May N Sule, Joanne Beale, Tendai Kativhu, Sneha Krishnan, Kondwani Luwe, Rossanie Daudi Malolo, Onike Mcharo, Anthony C Odili, Kristin T Ravndal, Jo Rose, Esther Shaylor, Eleanor Wozei, Faida Chikwezga, Barbara E Evans
{"title":"The persistence of failure in water, sanitation and hygiene programming: a qualitative study.","authors":"Dani J Barrington, Rebecca C Sindall, Annatoria Chinyama, Tracy Morse, May N Sule, Joanne Beale, Tendai Kativhu, Sneha Krishnan, Kondwani Luwe, Rossanie Daudi Malolo, Onike Mcharo, Anthony C Odili, Kristin T Ravndal, Jo Rose, Esther Shaylor, Eleanor Wozei, Faida Chikwezga, Barbara E Evans","doi":"10.1136/bmjgh-2024-016354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Unsafe water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) causes millions of deaths and disability-adjusted life-years annually. Despite global progress towards universal WASH, much of WASH programming continues to fail to improve health outcomes or be sustainable in the longer term, consistently falling short of internal performance indicators and sometimes negatively impacting the well-being of local stakeholders. Although sector experts in high-income countries have often provided explanations for such failures, the opinions of those implementing WASH programming at the ground level are rarely published.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 2020, we purposively recruited 108 front-line WASH professionals in Malawi, South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe to participate in 96 in-depth interviews, explaining why they believe WASH failure persists. Through participatory analysis, including framework analysis with additional axial coding and member-checking of our findings, we determined the core reasons for WASH failure as perceived by participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Interviewees reported poor engagement and commitment of intended users, unrealistic and idealistic expectations held by funders and implementers, and a general lack of workforce and financial capacity as significant contributors to WASH failure. Our analysis shows that these issues stem from WASH programming being implemented as time and budget-constrained projects. This projectisation has led to reduced accountability of funders and implementers to intended users and a focus on measuring inputs and outputs rather than outcomes and impacts. It has also placed high expectations on intended users to sustain WASH services and behaviour change after projects officially end.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings imply that WASH programming needs to move away from projectisation towards long-term investments with associated accountability to local governments and longitudinal measurements of WASH access, as well as realistic considerations of the needs, abilities and priorities of intended users. Funders need to reconsider the status quo and how adjusting their systems could support sustainable WASH services.</p>","PeriodicalId":9137,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Global Health","volume":"10 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11865792/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-016354","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Unsafe water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) causes millions of deaths and disability-adjusted life-years annually. Despite global progress towards universal WASH, much of WASH programming continues to fail to improve health outcomes or be sustainable in the longer term, consistently falling short of internal performance indicators and sometimes negatively impacting the well-being of local stakeholders. Although sector experts in high-income countries have often provided explanations for such failures, the opinions of those implementing WASH programming at the ground level are rarely published.

Methods: In 2020, we purposively recruited 108 front-line WASH professionals in Malawi, South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe to participate in 96 in-depth interviews, explaining why they believe WASH failure persists. Through participatory analysis, including framework analysis with additional axial coding and member-checking of our findings, we determined the core reasons for WASH failure as perceived by participants.

Results: Interviewees reported poor engagement and commitment of intended users, unrealistic and idealistic expectations held by funders and implementers, and a general lack of workforce and financial capacity as significant contributors to WASH failure. Our analysis shows that these issues stem from WASH programming being implemented as time and budget-constrained projects. This projectisation has led to reduced accountability of funders and implementers to intended users and a focus on measuring inputs and outputs rather than outcomes and impacts. It has also placed high expectations on intended users to sustain WASH services and behaviour change after projects officially end.

Conclusions: Our findings imply that WASH programming needs to move away from projectisation towards long-term investments with associated accountability to local governments and longitudinal measurements of WASH access, as well as realistic considerations of the needs, abilities and priorities of intended users. Funders need to reconsider the status quo and how adjusting their systems could support sustainable WASH services.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Global Health
BMJ Global Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
429
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Global Health is an online Open Access journal from BMJ that focuses on publishing high-quality peer-reviewed content pertinent to individuals engaged in global health, including policy makers, funders, researchers, clinicians, and frontline healthcare workers. The journal encompasses all facets of global health, with a special emphasis on submissions addressing underfunded areas such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It welcomes research across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialized studies. The journal also encourages opinionated discussions on controversial topics.
×
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