Cited by 358Child Nutrition and Water AccessParasites and Host InteractionsPublic Health and Environmental Issues

The impact of sanitation on infectious disease and nutritional status: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Freeman, Matthew C., Garn, Joshua V., Sclar, Gloria D., Boisson, Sophie, Medlicott, Kate, Alexander, Kelly T., Penakalapati, Gauthami, Anderson, Darcy +4 more·2017·International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.05.007

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

  1. 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).
  2. Higgins, J.P., Green, S., C. Collaboration, 2008. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Wiley Online Library.
  3. 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.
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
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