Cited by 269Child Nutrition and Water AccessGlobal Maternal and Child HealthPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare

The implications of three major new trials for the effect of water, sanitation and hygiene on childhood diarrhea and stunting: a consensus statement

Open access
Cumming, Oliver, Arnold, Benjamin F., Ban, Radu, Clasen, Thomas, Esteves Mills, Joanna, Freeman, Matthew C., Gordon, Bruce, Guiteras, Raymond +14 more·2019·BMC Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Three large new trials of unprecedented scale and cost, which included novel factorial designs, have found no effect of basic water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions on childhood stunting, and only mixed effects on childhood diarrhea. Arriving at the inception of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, and the bold new target of safely managed water, sanitation and hygiene for all by 2030, these results warrant the attention of researchers, policy-makers and practitioners. MAIN BODY: Here we report the conclusions of an expert meeting convened by the World Health Organization and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to discuss these findings, and present five key consensus messages as a basis for wider discussion and debate in the WASH and nutrition sectors. We judge these trials to have high internal validity, constituting good evidence that these specific interventions had no effect on childhood linear growth, and mixed effects on childhood diarrhea. These results suggest that, in settings such as these, more comprehensive or ambitious WASH interventions may be needed to achieve a major impact on child health. CONCLUSION: These results are important because such basic interventions are often deployed in low-income rural settings with the expectation of improving child health, although this is rarely the sole justification. Our view is that these three new trials do not show that WASH in general cannot influence child linear growth, but they do demonstrate that these specific interventions had no influence in settings where stunting remains an important public health challenge. We support a call for transformative WASH, in so much as it encapsulates the guiding principle that - in any context - a comprehensive package of WASH interventions is needed that is tailored to address the local exposure landscape and enteric disease burden.

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 · 10.1186/s12916-019-1410-x

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 56 · Cited by 269

Authors
Cumming, O., Arnold, B. F., Ban, R., Clasen, T., Esteves Mills, J., Freeman, M. C., Gordon, B., Guiteras, R., Howard, G., Hunter, P. R., Johnston, R. B., Pickering, A. J., Prendergast, A. J., Prüss-Ustün, A., Rosenboom, J. W., Spears, D., Sundberg, S., Wolf, J., Null, C., Luby, S. P., Humphrey, J. H., & Colford, J. M.
Affiliations
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Gates Foundation (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • Tufts University (US)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Mathematica Policy Research (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Cumming, Oliver
Venue
BMC Medicine
Published
2019-08-28
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
173-173
ISSN
1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2960401104
Cited by
269
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 3
FWCI
28.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (acceptedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • United States Agency for International Development
  • World Health Organization
  • London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
  • Wellcome Trust (108065/Z/15/Z)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Child Nutrition and Water Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Poverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Keywords
water, sanitation and hygiene, childhood diarrhea, child stunting, linear growth, WASH interventions, factorial design, enteric disease, Sustainable Development Goals
MeSH terms
Child Health, Child, Diarrhea, Growth Disorders, Humans, Hygiene, Poverty, Public Health, Rural Population, Sanitation, Water, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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