Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 270

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Impact of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Interventions to Control Cholera: A Systematic Review

Open access
Taylor, Dawn L., Kahawita, Tanya M., Cairncross, Sandy, Ensink, Jeroen H. J.·2015·PLOS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: Cholera remains a significant threat to global public health with an estimated 100,000 deaths per year. Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions are frequently employed to control outbreaks though evidence regarding their effectiveness is often missing. This paper presents a systematic literature review investigating the function, use and impact of WASH interventions implemented to control cholera. RESULTS: The review yielded eighteen studies and of the five studies reporting on health impact, four reported outcomes associated with water treatment at the point of use, and one with the provision of improved water and sanitation infrastructure. Furthermore, whilst the reporting of function and use of interventions has become more common in recent publications, the quality of studies remains low. The majority of papers (>60%) described water quality interventions, with those at the water source focussing on ineffective chlorination of wells, and the remaining being applied at the point of use. Interventions such as filtration, solar disinfection and distribution of chlorine products were implemented but their limitations regarding the need for adherence and correct use were not fully considered. Hand washing and hygiene interventions address several transmission routes but only 22% of the studies attempted to evaluate them and mainly focussed on improving knowledge and uptake of messages but not necessarily translating this into safer practices. The use and maintenance of safe water storage containers was only evaluated once, under-estimating the considerable potential for contamination between collection and use. This problem was confirmed in another study evaluating methods of container disinfection. One study investigated uptake of household disinfection kits which were accepted by the target population. A single study in an endemic setting compared a combination of interventions to improve water and sanitation infrastructure, and the resulting reductions in cholera incidence. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This review highlights a focus on particular routes of transmission, and the limited number of interventions tested during outbreaks. There is a distinct gap in knowledge of which interventions are most appropriate for a given context and as such a clear need for more robust impact studies evaluating a wider array of WASH interventions, in order to ensure effective cholera control and the best use of limited resources.

Overview

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.0135676

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 45 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. E Guevart, 2008, Diffuseur artisanal de chlore pour desinfecter les puits lors de l'epidemie de cholera de Douala, Med Trop, 68, 507
  2. J Einarsdottir, 2001, Health education and cholera in rural Guinea-bissau, Int J Infect Dis, 5, 133, 10.1016/S1201-9712(01)90087-6 · doi:10.1016/s1201-9712(01)90087-6
  3. RE Quick, 1996, Using a Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Survey to Supplement Findings of an Outbreak Investigation: Cholera Prevention Measures during the 1991 Epidemic in Peru, International journal of epidemiology, 25, 10.1093/ije/25.4.872 · doi:10.1093/ije/25.4.872
  4. A Steele, 2008, Impact of jerry can disinfection in a camp environment—experiences in an IDP camp in Northern Uganda, J Water Health, 6, 559, 10.2166/wh.2008.072 · doi:10.2166/wh.2008.072
  5. CJ Acosta, 2001, Cholera outbreak in southern Tanzania: risk factors and patterns of transmission, Emerg Infect Dis, 7, 583, 10.3201/eid0707.017741 · doi:10.3201/eid0707.017741
  6. D Bompangue, 2008, Lakes as source of cholera outbreaks, Democratic Republic of Congo, Emerg Infect Dis, 14, 798, 10.3201/eid1405.071260 · doi:10.3201/eid1405.071260
  7. A Huq, 1984, Influence of water temperature, salinity, and pH on survival and growth of toxigenic Vibrio cholerae serovar 01 associated with live copepods in laboratory microcosms, Appl Environ Microbiol, 48, 420, 10.1128/AEM.48.2.420-424.1984 · doi:10.1128/aem.48.2.420-424.1984
  8. A Kone-Coulibaly, 2010, Risk factors associated with cholera in Harare City, Zimbabwe, 2008, East African journal of public health, 7, 311
  9. BC Deb, 1982, Intra-familial transmission of Vibrio cholerae biotype El Tor in Calcutta slums, Indian J Med Res, 76, 814

Cited by

See all 270

Metadata

Authors
Taylor, D. L., Kahawita, T. M., Cairncross, S., & Ensink, J. H. J.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-08-18
Volume
10
Issue
8
Pages
e0135676
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1815121818
Cited by
270
References
45
FWCI
2.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Impact of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Interventions to Control Cholera: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0135676
The paper
Taylor, D. L., Kahawita, T. M., Cairncross, S., & Ensink, J. H. J. (2015). The Impact of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Interventions to Control Cholera: A Systematic Review. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135676

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.