Sophie Boisson

Bio: Sophie Boisson is an academic researcher from World Health Organization. The author has contributed to research in topics: Sanitation & Latrine. The author has an hindex of 32, co-authored 54 publications receiving 4291 citations. Previous affiliations of Sophie Boisson include University of London & International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh.

Water, sanitation and hygiene for the prevention of diarrhoea.

Abstract: Background Ever since John Snow’s intervention on the Broad St pump, the effect of water quality, hygiene and sanitation in preventing diarrhoea deaths has always been debated. The evidence identified in previous reviews is of variable quality, and mostly relates to morbidity rather than mortality. Methods We drew on three systematic reviews, two of them for the Cochrane Collaboration, focussed on the effect of handwashing with soap on diarrhoea, of water quality improvement and of excreta disposal, respectively. The estimated effect on diarrhoea mortality was determined by applying the rules adopted for this supplement, where appropriate. Results The striking effect of handwashing with soap is consistent across various study designs and pathogens, though it depends on access to water. The effect of water treatment appears similarly large, but is not found in few blinded studies, suggesting that it may be partly due to the placebo effect. There is very little rigorous evidence for the health benefit of sanitation; four intervention studies were eventually identified, though they were all quasi-randomized, had morbidity as the outcome, and were in Chinese. Conclusion We propose diarrhoea risk reductions of 48, 17 and 36%, associated respectively, with handwashing with soap, improved water quality and excreta disposal as the estimates of effect for the LiST model. Most of the evidence is of poor quality. More trials are needed, but the evidence is nonetheless strong enough to support the provision of water supply, sanitation and hygiene for all.

Interventions to improve water quality and supply, sanitation and hygiene practices, and their effects on the nutritional status of children

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions are frequently implemented to reduce infectious diseases, and may be linked to improved nutrition outcomes in children. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of interventions to improve water quality and supply (adequate quantity to maintain hygiene practices), provide adequate sanitation and promote handwashing with soap, on the nutritional status of children under the age of 18 years and to identify current research gaps. SEARCH METHODS: We searched 10 English-language (including MEDLINE and CENTRAL) and three Chinese-language databases for published studies in June 2012. We searched grey literature databases, conference proceedings and websites, reviewed reference lists and contacted experts and authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised (including cluster-randomised), quasi-randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, controlled cohort or cross-sectional studies and historically controlled studies, comparing WASH interventions among children aged under 18 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently sought and extracted data on childhood anthropometry, biochemical measures of micronutrient status, and adherence, attrition and costs either from published reports or through contact with study investigators. We calculated mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted study-level and individual-level meta-analyses to estimate pooled measures of effect for randomised controlled trials only. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen studies (five cluster-randomised controlled trials and nine non-randomised studies with comparison groups) from 10 low- and middle-income countries including 22,241 children at baseline and nutrition outcome data for 9,469 children provided relevant information. Study duration ranged from 6 to 60 months and all studies included children under five years of age at the time of the intervention. Studies included WASH interventions either singly or in combination. Measures of child anthropometry were collected in all 14 studies, and nine studies reported at least one of the following anthropometric indices: weight-for-height, weight-for-age or height-for-age. None of the included studies were of high methodological quality as none of the studies masked the nature of the intervention from participants.Weight-for-age, weight-for-height and height-for-age z-scores were available for five cluster-randomised controlled trials with a duration of between 9 and 12 months. Meta-analysis including 4,627 children identified no evidence of an effect of WASH interventions on weight-for-age z-score (MD 0.05; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.12). Meta-analysis including 4,622 children identified no evidence of an effect of WASH interventions on weight-for-height z-score (MD 0.02; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.11). Meta-analysis including 4,627 children identified a borderline statistically significant effect of WASH interventions on height-for-age z-score (MD 0.08; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.16). These findings were supported by individual participant data analysis including information on 5,375 to 5,386 children from five cluster-randomised controlled trials.No study reported adverse events. Adherence to study interventions was reported in only two studies (both cluster-randomised controlled trials) and ranged from low ( 90%). Study attrition was reported in seven studies and ranged from 4% to 16.5%. Intervention cost was reported in one study in which the total cost of the WASH interventions was USD 15/inhabitant. None of the studies reported differential impacts relevant to equity issues such as gender, socioeconomic status and religion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence from meta-analysis of data from cluster-randomised controlled trials with an intervention period of 9-12 months is suggestive of a small benefit of WASH interventions (specifically solar disinfection of water, provision of soap, and improvement of water quality) on length growth in children under five years of age. The duration of the intervention studies was relatively short and none of the included studies is of high methodological quality. Very few studies provided information on intervention adherence, attrition and costs. There are several ongoing trials in low-income country settings that may provide robust evidence to inform these findings.

Interventions to improve water quality for preventing diarrhoea

Abstract: Background Diarrhoea is a major cause of death and disease, especially among young children in low-income countries. In these settings, many infectious agents associated with diarrhoea are spread through water contaminated with faeces. In remote and low-income settings, source-based water quality improvement includes providing protected groundwater (springs, wells, and bore holes), or harvested rainwater as an alternative to surface sources (rivers and lakes). Point-of-use water quality improvement interventions include boiling, chlorination, flocculation, filtration, or solar disinfection, mainly conducted at home. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of interventions to improve water quality for preventing diarrhoea. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (11 November 2014), CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library, 7 November 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to 10 November 2014), EMBASE (1974 to 10 November 2014), and LILACS (1982 to 7 November 2014). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, contacted researchers and organizations working in the field, and checked references from identified studies through 11 November 2014. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and controlled before-and-after studies (CBA) comparing interventions aimed at improving the microbiological quality of drinking water with no intervention in children and adults. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used meta-analyses to estimate pooled measures of effect, where appropriate, and investigated potential sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results Forty-five cluster-RCTs, two quasi-RCTs, and eight CBA studies, including over 84,000 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Most included studies were conducted in low- or middle-income countries (LMICs) (50 studies) with unimproved water sources (30 studies) and unimproved or unclear sanitation (34 studies). The primary outcome in most studies was self-reported diarrhoea, which is at high risk of bias due to the lack of blinding in over 80% of the included studies. Source-based water quality improvements There is currently insufficient evidence to know if source-based improvements such as protected wells, communal tap stands, or chlorination/filtration of community sources consistently reduce diarrhoea (one cluster-RCT, five CBA studies, very low quality evidence). We found no studies evaluating reliable piped-in water supplies delivered to households. Point-of-use water quality interventions On average, distributing water disinfection products for use at the household level may reduce diarrhoea by around one quarter (Home chlorination products: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.91; 14 trials, 30,746 participants, low quality evidence; flocculation and disinfection sachets: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82, four trials, 11,788 participants, moderate quality evidence). However, there was substantial heterogeneity in the size of the effect estimates between individual studies. Point-of-use filtration systems probably reduce diarrhoea by around a half (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.59, 18 trials, 15,582 participants, moderate quality evidence). Important reductions in diarrhoea episodes were shown with ceramic filters, biosand systems and LifeStraw® filters; (Ceramic: RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.53; eight trials, 5763 participants, moderate quality evidence; Biosand: RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.57; four trials, 5504 participants, moderate quality evidence; LifeStraw®: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.93; three trials, 3259 participants, low quality evidence). Plumbed in filters have only been evaluated in high-income settings (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.94, three trials, 1056 participants, fixed effects model). In low-income settings, solar water disinfection (SODIS) by distribution of plastic bottles with instructions to leave filled bottles in direct sunlight for at least six hours before drinking probably reduces diarrhoea by around a third (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.94; four trials, 3460 participants, moderate quality evidence). In subgroup analyses, larger effects were seen in trials with higher adherence, and trials that provided a safe storage container. In most cases, the reduction in diarrhoea shown in the studies was evident in settings with improved and unimproved water sources and sanitation. Authors' conclusions Interventions that address the microbial contamination of water at the point-of-use may be important interim measures to improve drinking water quality until homes can be reached with safe, reliable, piped-in water connections. The average estimates of effect for each individual point-of-use intervention generally show important effects. Comparisons between these estimates do not provide evidence of superiority of one intervention over another, as such comparisons are confounded by the study setting, design, and population. Further studies assessing the effects of household connections and chlorination at the point of delivery will help improve our knowledge base. As evidence suggests effectiveness improves with adherence, studies assessing programmatic approaches to optimising coverage and long-term utilization of these interventions among vulnerable populations could also help strategies to improve health outcomes.

Impact of drinking water, sanitation and handwashing with soap on childhood diarrhoeal disease: updated meta-analysis and meta-regression

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: Safe drinking water, sanitation and hygiene are protective against diarrhoeal disease; a leading cause of child mortality. The main objective was an updated assessment of the impact of unsafe water, sanitation and hygiene (WaSH) on childhood diarrhoeal disease. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of articles published between 1970 and February 2016. Study results were combined and analysed using meta-analysis and meta-regression. RESULTS: A total of 135 studies met the inclusion criteria. Several water, sanitation and hygiene interventions were associated with lower risk of diarrhoeal morbidity. Point-of-use filter interventions with safe storage reduced diarrhoea risk by 61% (RR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.32, 0.48); piped water to premises of higher quality and continuous availability by 75% and 36% (RR = 0.25 (0.09, 0.67) and 0.64 (0.42, 0.98)), respectively compared to a baseline of unimproved drinking water; sanitation interventions by 25% (RR = 0.75 (0.63, 0.88)) with evidence for greater reductions when high sanitation coverage is reached; and interventions promoting handwashing with soap by 30% (RR = 0.70 (0.64, 0.77)) vs. no intervention. Results of the analysis of sanitation and hygiene interventions are sensitive to certain differences in study methods and conditions. Correcting for non-blinding would reduce the associations with diarrhoea to some extent. CONCLUSIONS: Although evidence is limited, results suggest that household connections of water supply and higher levels of community coverage for sanitation appear particularly impactful which is in line with targets of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Maternal and Child Nutrition 2 Evidence-based interventions for improvement of maternal and child nutrition: what can be done and at what cost?

Abstract: has grown since The Lancet Series on Maternal and Child Undernutrition in 2008. We did a comprehensive update of interventions to address undernutrition and micronutrient defi ciencies in women and children and used standard methods to assess emerging new evidence for delivery platforms. We modelled the eff ect on lives saved and cost of these interventions in the 34 countries that have 90% of the world’s children with stunted growth. We also examined the eff ect of various delivery platforms and delivery options using community health workers to engage poor populations and promote behaviour change, access and uptake of interventions. Our analysis suggests the current total of deaths in children younger than 5 years can be reduced by 15% if populations can access ten evidence-based nutrition interventions at 90% coverage. Accelerated gains are possible and about a fi fth of the existing burden of stunting can be averted using these approaches, if access is improved in this way. The estimated total additional annual cost involved for scaling up access to these ten direct nutrition interventions in the 34 focus countries is Int$9·6 billion per year. Continued investments in nutrition-specifi c interventions to avert maternal and child undernutrition and micronutrient defi ciencies through community engagement and delivery strategies that can reach poor segments of the population at greatest risk can make a great diff erence. If this improved access is linked to nutrition-sensitive approaches—ie, women’s empowerment, agriculture, food systems, education, employment, social protection, and safety nets—they can greatly accelerate progress in countries with the highest burden of maternal and child undernutrition and mortality.

The United Nations Children's Fund

Abstract: The United Nations Children's Fund, or UNICEF, was originally created to provide relief for children in countries devastated by the destruction of World War II. After 1950, UNICEF turned to focus on general programs for the improvement of children's welfare worldwide, and in 1965, it was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace for its humanitarian efforts. The organization concentrates on areas in which relatively small expenditures can have a significant impact on the lives of the most disadvantaged children in developing countries, such as the prevention and treatment of disease, child healthcare, malnutrition, illiteracy, and other welfare services.