The state of reporting context and implementation in peer-reviewed evaluations of water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions: A scoping review

Le résumé fourni par la source

INTRODUCTION: To accurately assess evidence from environmental and public health field trials, context and implementation details of the intervention must be weighed with trial results; yet these details are under and inconsistently reported for water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), limiting the external validity of the evidence. METHODS: To quantify the level of reporting of context and implementation in WASH evaluations, we conducted a scoping review of the 40 most cited evaluations of WASH interventions published in the last 10 years (2012-2022). We applied criteria derived from a review of existing reporting guidance from other sectors including healthcare and implementation science. We subsequently reviewed main articles, supplements, protocols, and other associated resources to assess thoroughness of context and implementation reporting. RESULTS: Of the final 25 reporting items we searched for, four-intervention name, approach, location, and temporality-were reported by all studies. Five items-theory, implementer qualifications, dose intensity, targeting, and measured fidelity-were not reported in over a third of reviewed articles. Only two studies (5%) reported all items in our checklist. Only 74% of items were found in the main article, while the rest were found in separate papers (7%) or not at all (19%). DISCUSSION: Inconsistent reporting of WASH implementation illustrates a major challenge in the sector. It is difficult to know what interventions are actually being evaluated and how to compare evaluation results. This inconsistent and incomplete implementation reporting limits the ability of programmers and policy makers to apply the available evidence to their contexts. Standardized reporting guidelines would improve the application of the evidence for WASH field evaluations.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.