Cited by 151Child Nutrition and Water AccessSchool Health and Nursing EducationBehavioral Health and Interventions

Behavior Change without Behavior Change Communication: Nudging Handwashing among Primary School Students in Bangladesh

Open access
Dreibelbis, Robert, Kroeger, Anne, Hossain, Kamal, Venkatesh, Mohini, Ram, Pavani·2016·International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Abstract

Behavior change communication for improving handwashing with soap can be labor and resource intensive, yet quality results are difficult to achieve. Nudges are environmental cues engaging unconscious decision-making processes to prompt behavior change. In this proof-of-concept study, we developed an inexpensive set of nudges to encourage handwashing with soap after toilet use in two primary schools in rural Bangladesh. We completed direct observation of behaviors at baseline, after providing traditional handwashing infrastructure, and at multiple time periods following targeted handwashing nudges (1 day, 2 weeks, and 6 weeks). No additional handwashing education or motivational messages were completed. Handwashing with soap among school children was low at baseline (4%), increasing to 68% the day after nudges were completed and 74% at both 2 weeks and 6 weeks post intervention. Results indicate that nudge-based interventions have the potential to improve handwashing with soap among school-aged children in Bangladesh and specific areas of further inquiry are discussed.

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 · 10.3390/ijerph13010129

Cites

31 of 31 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?

  • Studies assessing the impact of hygiene behaviour change interventions on hand washing practice demonstrate that presence of infrastructure alone is unlikely to sustainably improve hygiene behaviours.

    “Studies assessing the impact of hygiene behaviour change interventions on hand washing practice demonstrate that presence of infrastructure alone is unlikely to sustainably improve hygiene behaviours [31,32]”

    From Menstrual hygiene management and school absenteeism among adolescent students in Indonesia: evidence from a cross-sectional school-based survey (2018) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Discussion reports that infrastructure alone produced only a slight increase in handwashing and says it was likely insufficient for population-level health impacts. The Results show an increase from 4% to 18% after infrastructure installation, but the paper did not assess whether infrastructure alone could sustainably improve behaviour; its six-week follow-up was after the nudges were added. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • All of the 13 publications that examined changes in WASH knowledge, attitudes and hygiene behaviours reported evidence of positive change among students in intervention schools including hand-washing with soap or sanitizer, improved knowledge of WASH-related diseases, and improved hygiene habits.

    “All of the 13 publications that examined changes in WASH knowledge, attitudes and hygiene behaviours reported evidence of positive change among students in intervention schools including hand-washing with soap or sanitizer [8,16,29,30,31], improved knowledge of WASH-related diseases, and improved hygiene habits [7,13].”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dreibelbis, R., Kroeger, A., Hossain, K., Venkatesh, M., & Ram, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Oklahoma (US)
  • Save the Children (BD)
  • Save the Children (US)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Dreibelbis, Robert
Venue
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2016-01-14
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
129
ISSN
1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2234246835
Cited by
151
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2
FWCI
11.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • 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)
Funders
University of Oklahoma
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Child Nutrition and Water Access
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
handwashing with soap, nudging, behavior change, behavior change communication, elementary school students, toilet use, environmental cues, hygiene practices, low-cost interventions, rural Bangladesh
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Audiovisual Aids, Bangladesh, Child, Communication, Decision Making, Female, Hand Disinfection, Health Promotion, Humans, Male, Motivation, Pilot Projects, Rural Population, Schools, Students, Health Behavior, Risk Reduction Behavior

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