Children
Child rights action with informed and engaged societies
Children

After nearly 28 years, The Communication Initiative (The CI) Global is entering a new chapter. 

Following a period of transition, the global website has been transferred to the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) in South Africa, where it will be administered by the Social and Behaviour Change Communication Division. Wits' commitment to social change and justice makes it a trusted steward for The CI's legacy and future. 

On the transfer, co-founder Victoria Martin expressed her pleasure to see this work continue under Wits' leadership, knowing that co-founder Warren Feek (1953–2024) would have felt deep pride in The CI Global's Africa-led direction. 

As Wits, we honour the team and partners who sustained The CI for decades and look forward building from that strong base. This includes co-founders Warren Feek (1953-2024) and Victoria Martin as well as La Iniciativa de Comunicación (CILA), which continues independently at lainiciativadecomunicacion.com with links to The CI Global site. We are also eager to forge new partnerships and entertain new ideas as we consider how best to contribute to social and behaviour change in our rapidly evolving environment.

If you are joining the International Social and Behaviour Change Communication (SBCC) Summit in Panama, please join Wits and CILA on Monday, 22 June, to share your thoughts and suggestion for the relaunch of the Communication Initiative. We will be in Pacifica 5 from 12-1:25 for the Refuel, Reflect, and Renew Lunch Series: The Communication Initiative: celebrating a driving force for Communication for Social Change and the way forward. We will reflect on the legacy of Warren Feek and family in creating the Communication Initiative, consider the contributions of CI over the years and then turn our attention towards the future in this dynamic session. 

If you are unable to join us in Panama, we still want to hear from you. Please contribute your thoughts by following this link: https://redcap.link/CommunicationInitiative2026 or reaching out to ci_surveys@commint.com. 

You can also follow the QR Code:

 https://redcap.link/CommunicationInitiative2026

Time to read
less than
1 minute
Print
a- a+
Published 12 years ago
Last updated 3 years ago
Read so far

Water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions to reduce diarrhea in less developed countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

0 comments

Fewtrell, L., Kaufmann, R.B., Kay, D., Enanoria, W., Holler, L., & Colford, J.M. (2005). Water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions to reduce diarrhea in less developed countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet, 5(1), 42-52.

Abstract

Many studies have reported the results of interventions to reduce illness through improvements in drinking water, sanitation facilities, and hygiene practices in less developed countries. There has, however, been no formal systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the evidence of the relative effectiveness of these interventions. We developed a comprehensive search strategy designed to identify all peer-reviewed articles, in any language, that presented water, sanitation, or hygiene interventions. We examined only those articles with specific measurement of diarrhoea morbidity as a health outcome in non-outbreak conditions. We screened the titles and, where necessary, the abstracts of 2120 publications. 46 studies were judged to contain relevant evidence and were reviewed in detail. Data were extracted from these studies and pooled by meta-analysis to provide summary estimates of the effectiveness of each type of intervention. All of the interventions studied were found to reduce significantly the risks of diarrhoeal illness. Most of the interventions had a similar degree of impact on diarrhoeal illness, with the relative risk estimates from the overall meta-analyses ranging between 0.63 and 0.75. The results generally agree with those from previous reviews, but water quality interventions (point-of-use water treatment) were found to be more effective than previously thought, and multiple interventions (consisting of combined water, sanitation, and hygiene measures) were not more effective than interventions with a single focus. There is some evidence of publication bias in the findings from the hygiene and water treatment interventions.