The impact of sanitation on infectious disease and nutritional status: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Sanitation aims to sequester human feces and prevent exposure to fecal pathogens. More than 2.4 billion people worldwide lack access to improved sanitation facilities and almost one billion practice open defecation. We undertook systematic reviews and meta-analyses to compile the most recent evidence on the impact of sanitation on diarrhea, soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infections, trachoma, schistosomiasis, and nutritional status assessed using anthropometry. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We updated previously published reviews by following their search strategy and eligibility criteria. We searched from the previous review's end date to December 31, 2015. We conducted meta-analyses to estimate pooled measures of effect using random-effects models and conducted subgroup analyses to assess impact of different levels of sanitation services and to explore sources of heterogeneity. We assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence from intervention studies using the Liverpool Quality Appraisal Tool (LQAT) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, respectively. A total of 171 studies met the review's inclusion criteria, including 64 studies not included in the previous reviews. Overall, the evidence suggests that sanitation is protective against diarrhea, active trachoma, some STH infections, schistosomiasis, and height-for-age, with no protective effect for other anthropometric outcomes. The evidence was generally of poor quality, heterogeneity was high, and GRADE scores ranged from very low to high. CONCLUSIONS: This review confirms positive impacts of sanitation on aspects of health. Evidence gaps remain and point to the need for research that rigorously describes sanitation implementation and type of sanitation interventions.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Safe and reliable drinking water, sanitation that separates excreta from human contact, and handwashing with soap at key times have positive effects on health and social and economic wellbeing.
“Safe and reliable drinking water, sanitation that separates excreta from human contact, and handwashing with soap at key times, such as after potential faecal contact and before eating or preparing food, have positive effects on health and social and economic wellbeing.1, 2, 3, 4, 5”
Previous systematic reviews on WASH interventions and diarrhoea provided effect estimates for basic sanitation interventions or point-of-use water treatment.
“Previous systematic reviews on WASH interventions and diarrhoea provided effect estimates for basic sanitation interventions3 or point-of-use (POU) water treatment.1”
Quantification of the global burden of disease related to improvements to WASH is limited by the challenge of securing reliable estimates of risk from diverse settings, conditions, and populations.
“However, quantification of the global burden of disease related to improvements to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) is limited by the challenge of securing reliable estimates of risk from diverse settings, conditions, and populations.3, 6”
Freeman and colleagues found an overall RR of 0·77 (95% CI 0·66-0·91) for the effect of sanitation interventions on risk of diarrhoea in children, which is close to our pooled estimate of all sanitation interventions.
“Freeman and colleagues3 found an overall RR of 0·77 (95% CI 0·66–0·91) for the effect of sanitation interventions on risk of diarrhoea in children, which is close to our pooled estimate of all sanitation interventions.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 78 · Cited by 358
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Clasen, T., Boisson, S., Routray, P., Torondel, B., Bell, M., Cumming, O., Ensink, J., Freeman, M., Jenkins, M., Odagiri, M., Ray, S., Sinha, A., Suar, M., Schmidt, W.P., 2014a. The effectiveness of a rural sanitation programme in Odisha, India on diarrhoea, soil-transmitted helminth infection and child malnutrition: a cluster-randomized trial. Lancet Glob. Health (in press).
- Higgins, J.P., Green, S., C. Collaboration, 2008. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Wiley Online Library.
- Wagner, E.G., Lanoix, J.N., 1958. Excreta disposal for rural areas and small communities, 39. Monogr Ser World Health Organ, pp. 1-182.
- Authors
- Freeman, M. C., Garn, J. V., Sclar, G. D., Boisson, S., Medlicott, K., Alexander, K. T., Penakalapati, G., Anderson, D., Mahtani, A. G., Grimes, J. E. T., Rehfuess, E. A., & Clasen, T. F.
- Affiliations
- Emory University (US)
- World Health Organization (CH)
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Freeman, Matthew C.
- Clasen, Thomas F.
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-08
- Volume
- 220
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 928-949
- ISSN
- 1438-4639 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2620594344
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 78
- Citations by year
- 2026: 49 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 3.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- World Health Organization
- Department for International Development, UK Government
- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Child Nutrition and Water Access
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Parasitology › Parasites and Host Interactions
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Public Health and Environmental Issues
- Keywords
- sanitation, improved sanitation, open defecation, diarrhea, soil-transmitted helminths, trachoma, schistosomiasis, nutritional status, height-for-age, anthropometry, fecal pathogens, sanitation interventions
- MeSH terms
- Diarrhea, Helminthiasis, Humans, Nutritional Status, Sanitation, Trachoma
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review