The effect of community-based behaviour change interventions on observed handwashing and child faeces disposal in rural Malawi: a controlled before-and-after (CBA) trial
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Introduction
While hygiene promotion is frequently included in sanitation programmes, few studies directly evaluate the effect of these interventions on hygiene outcomes. We assessed the effectiveness of a district-level Community-led Total Sanitation (CLTS) intervention with and without locally managed Care Groups (CG) on observed sanitation and hygiene behaviours in a rural area of Chiradzulu District, Malawi.
Methods
This was a controlled before-and-after trial with two intervention arms and a control group implemented in three sub-districts (also known as Traditional Authorities [TAs]) in Chiradzulu District, Malawi. Two TAs received CLTS, which included an additional low-intensity government-led hygiene promotion campaign. One TA received the standard CLTS intervention (CLTS group), and one received the same intervention but with additional sanitation and hygiene promotion delivered through local Care Groups (CLTS+CG group). The third TA served as the control group. Hygiene and child faeces disposal outcomes were measured by fieldworker direct observation in a purposively sampled subset of 96 to 140 households per arm enrolled in the main trial at baseline (June 2023) and at endline (May 2024). We estimated intervention effects on observed handwashing behaviour and safe child faeces disposal with hierarchical logistic regression models.
Results
In our per protocol analysis, neither intervention was associated with differences in observed handwashing with soap compared to the control arm nor with differences in observed child faeces disposal. Additional analyses found that both interventions were associated with large increases in hand rinsing with water only compared to control groups (CLTS+CG group adjusted relative risk ratio [aRRR] = 2.80, CI = 1.81, 4.33; CLTS group aRRR = 1.76, CI = 1.10, 2.83). The CLTS+CG intervention was associated with a slight increase in hand rinsing compared to the CLTS only group (aRRR = 1.65, CI = 1.01, 2.69).
Conclusion
The CLTS+CG and CLTS interventions were associated with an increase in hand rinsing at critical junctures but not handwashing with soap, suggesting that current hygiene programmes require further focus on soap access and use. Future research should investigate barriers to the availability and competing uses of soap in households. Both interventions did not increase safe child faeces disposal, though the sample size was small. Future research should investigate further integration of child faeces management into CLTS and CG behaviour change interventions.
