Cited by 49Influenza Virus Research StudiesInfection Control in HealthcareRespiratory viral infections research

Impact of intensive handwashing promotion on secondary household influenza-like illness in rural Bangladesh: findings from a randomized controlled trial

Open access
Ram, Pavani K., DiVita, Margaret A., Khatun-e-Jannat, Kaniz, Islam, Manoshi, Krytus, Kimberly, Cercone, Emily, Sohel, Badrul Munir, Ahmed, Makhdum +7 more·2015·PLoS ONE

Abstract

RATIONALE: There is little evidence for the efficacy of handwashing for prevention of influenza transmission in resource-poor settings. We tested the impact of intensive handwashing promotion on household transmission of influenza-like illness and influenza in rural Bangladesh. METHODS: In 2009-10, we identified index case-patients with influenza-like illness (fever with cough or sore throat) who were the only symptomatic person in their household. Household compounds of index case-patients were randomized to control or intervention (soap and daily handwashing promotion). We conducted daily surveillance and collected oropharyngeal specimens. Secondary attack ratios (SAR) were calculated for influenza and ILI in each arm. Among controls, we investigated individual risk factors for ILI among household contacts of index case-patients. RESULTS: Among 377 index case-patients, the mean number of days between fever onset and study enrollment was 2.1 (SD 1.7) among the 184 controls and 2.6 (SD 2.9) among 193 intervention case-patients. Influenza infection was confirmed in 20% of controls and 12% of intervention index case-patients. The SAR for influenza-like illness among household contacts was 9.5% among intervention (158/1661) and 7.7% among control households (115/1498) (SAR ratio 1.24, 95% CI 0.92-1.65). The SAR ratio for influenza was 2.40 (95% CI 0.68-8.47). In the control arm, susceptible contacts <2 years old (RRadj 5.51, 95% CI 3.43-8.85), those living with an index case-patient enrolled ≤24 hours after symptom onset (RRadj 1.91, 95% CI 1.18-3.10), and those who reported multiple daily interactions with the index case-patient (RRadj 1.94, 95% CI 1.71-3.26) were at increased risk of influenza-like illness. DISCUSSION: Handwashing promotion initiated after illness onset in a household member did not protect against influenza-like illness or influenza. Behavior may not have changed rapidly enough to curb transmission between household members. A reactive approach to reduce household influenza transmission through handwashing promotion may be ineffective in the context of rural Bangladesh. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00880659.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0125200

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ram, P. K., DiVita, M. A., Khatun-e-Jannat, K., Islam, M., Krytus, K., Cercone, E., Sohel, B. M., Ahmed, M., Rahman, A. M. Q., Rahman, M., Yu, J., Brooks, W. A., Azziz-Baumgartner, E., Fry, A. M., & Luby, S. P.
Affiliations
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (BD)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
Corresponding author
Ram, Pavani K.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2015-06-11
Volume
10
Issue
6
Pages
e0125200
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W610695716
Cited by
49
References
24
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U01CI000628, 3U01CI000628)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Influenza Virus Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Respiratory viral infections research
Keywords
handwashing promotion, household transmission, influenza-like illness, influenza transmission, household contacts, soap, hygiene interventions, reactive interventions, risk factors, rural Bangladesh, 2009 H1N1 pandemic, resource-limited settings
MeSH terms
Bangladesh, Child, Preschool, Family Characteristics, Female, Hand Disinfection, Humans, Infant, Influenza, Human, Male, Oropharynx, Rural Population

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