The impact of an operation and management intervention on toilet usability in schools in the Philippines: a cluster randomised controlled trial

Helen Buxton, Jed Dimaisip-Nabuab, Denise Duijster, Bella Monse, Habib Benzian, Robert Dreibelbis, Helen Buxton, Jed Dimaisip-Nabuab, Denise Duijster, Bella Monse, Habib Benzian, Robert Dreibelbis

Abstract

Background: Access to usable water, sanitation and hygiene provision in schools is included within indicators in the Sustainable Development Goals. Progress towards these indicators is dependent on developing an understanding of which intervention components are most effective to operate and maintain usable services. This study aimed to determine the impact of a school toilet operation and management intervention in the Philippines on toilet usability and student and teacher satisfaction, adjusted for clustering at school level.

Methods: In a non-blinded cluster randomised controlled trial, we compared improvements in usability and cleanliness of school toilets among those schools receiving a low-cost, replicable intervention. Toilet usability was measured based on Sustainable Development Goal indicators related to school sanitation defined by the UNICEF/WHO Joint Monitoring Programme for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene. Intervention schools received consumables, support kits, and structured tools designed to facilitate operation and maintenance of sanitation facilities. The primary outcome, toilet usability and cleanliness, was compared through a difference-in-difference analysis of toilet usability. Secondary outcomes of student and teacher satisfaction were measured through a survey at endline. All outcomes were adjusted for clustering at school level.

Results: 20 eligible schools in the Batangas region of the Philippines were randomly selected and allocated to either control or intervention group. We found that non-classroom toilets were 48% more likely to meet quality benchmarks in intervention schools, but this was not statistically significant. When including in-classroom toilets in the analysis, there were no significant differences in toilet usability - defined as accessible, functional, private and of high quality - between intervention and control schools. When stratified by toilet location, children in the intervention group clusters expressed a minor, but statistically significant increase in overall satisfaction with sanitation facilities (p = 0.035).

Conclusion: Water, sanitation and hygiene interventions in schools focusing on operation and maintenance showed potential to improve toilet usability, but universal achievement of SDG targets may require additional efforts addressing toilet infrastructure.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03204175, June 2017 prior to participant enrolment.

Keywords: Joint monitoring programme; Operation and management; School sanitation.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

    1. Freeman MC, et al. The impact of a school-based water supply and treatment, hygiene, and sanitation programme on pupil diarrhoea: a cluster-randomized trial. Epidemiol Infect. 2014;142(2):340–351. doi: 10.1017/S0950268813001118.
    1. Garn Joshua V., Greene Leslie E., Dreibelbis Robert, Saboori Shadi, Rheingans Richard D., Freeman Matthew C. A cluster-randomized trial assessing the impact of school water, sanitation and hygiene improvements on pupil enrolment and gender parity in enrolment. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development. 2013;3(4):592–601. doi: 10.2166/washdev.2013.217.
    1. Bowen A, et al. A cluster-randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of a handwashing-promotion program in Chinese primary schools. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007;76(6):1166–1173. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2007.76.1166.
    1. Saboori S, et al. Sustaining school hand washing and water treatment programmes: lessons learned and to be learned. Waterlines. 2011;30(4):298–311. doi: 10.3362/1756-3488.2011.040.
    1. Cameron . Does ‘improved’ sanitation make children healthier? Household pit latrines and child health in rural Ethiopia. 2009.
    1. Caruso BA, et al. If you build it will they come? Factors influencing rural primary pupils’ urination and defecation practices at school in western Kenya. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev. 2014;4(4):642–653. doi: 10.2166/washdev.2014.028.
    1. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and World Health Organization. Drinking water, sanitation and hygiene in schools: Global baseline report 2018. New York; 2018.
    1. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and World Health Organization . Core questions and indicators for monitoring WASH in Schools in the Sustainable Development Goals. 2016.
    1. Dreibelbis R, Alexander K, Trinies V, Caruso B, Rheingans R. Exploring the sustainability of school water, sanitation, and hygiene programs. 2013.
    1. Alexander KT, et al. Improving service delivery of water, sanitation, and hygiene in primary schools: a cluster-randomized trial in western Kenya. J Water Health. 2013;11(3):507–519. doi: 10.2166/wh.2013.213.
    1. Chatterley C, Linden KG, Javernick-Will A. Identifying pathways to continued maintenance of school sanitation in Belize. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev. 2013;3(3):411. doi: 10.2166/washdev.2013.128.
    1. Duijster D, et al. ‘Fit for school’–a school-based water, sanitation and hygiene programme to improve child health: Results from a longitudinal study in Cambodia, Indonesia and Lao PDR. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):302. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4203-1.
    1. Monse B, et al. The fit for school health outcome study - a longitudinal survey to assess health impacts of an integrated school health programme in the Philippines. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):256. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-256.
    1. Fit for School, D.G.f.I.Z.G.G . Research update. 2018. Cambodia, Kampot Province. Scale-up success factors. Managing WASH in Schools on provisional and district levels.
    1. Department of Education Republic of Philippines, DepEd Order No. 10, s. 2016: WinS Policy & Implementing Guide, D.o. Education, Editor. 2016: Manila, Philippines.
    1. Bank, W. World Bank Country and Lending Groups. Knowledgebase 2019 27/03/19]; list of countries by income bracket]. Available from: .
    1. Rossiter JR. The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. Int J Res Mark. 2002.
    1. ODK community . Open Data Kit. 2018.
    1. Borgers N, de Leeuw E, Hox J. Children as respondents in survey research: cognitive development and response quality 1. Bulletin Sociol Methodol. 2016;66(1):60–75. doi: 10.1177/075910630006600106.
    1. Chard A, Freeman M. Design, intervention Fidelity, and behavioral outcomes of a school-based water, sanitation, and hygiene cluster-randomized trial in Laos. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(4):570. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15040570.
    1. Garn JV, et al. Estimating the effect of school water, sanitation, and hygiene improvements on pupil health outcomes. Epidemiology. 2016;27(5):752. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000522.
    1. Garn JV, et al. The role of adherence on the impact of a school-based water, sanitation, and hygiene intervention in Mali. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017;96(4):984–993.
    1. Caruso BA, et al. Assessing the impact of a school-based latrine cleaning and handwashing program on pupil absence in Nyanza Province, Kenya: a cluster-randomized trial. Tropical Med Int Health. 2014;19(10):1185–1197. doi: 10.1111/tmi.12360.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren