Add wos sample results library

02-data/intermediate/wos_sample/2acaea481ba7ff889c0cb4138bd17ec2-chirgwin-hannah-and/info.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,257 @@
+abstract: 'Background Lack of access to and use of water, sanitation and hygiene
+
+  (WASH) cause 1.6 million deaths every year, of which 1.2 million are due
+
+  to gastrointestinal illnesses like diarrhoea and acute respiratory
+
+  infections like pneumonia. Poor WASH access and use also diminish
+
+  nutrition and educational attainment, and cause danger and stress for
+
+  vulnerable populations, especially for women and girls. The hardest hit
+
+  regions are sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Sustainable Development
+
+  Goal (SDG) 6 calls for the end of open defecation, and universal access
+
+  to safely managed water and sanitation facilities, and basic hand
+
+  hygiene, by 2030. WASH access and use also underpin progress in other
+
+  areas such as SDG1 poverty targets, SDG3 health and SDG4 education
+
+  targets. Meeting the SDG equity agenda to ``leave none behind{''''} will
+
+  require WASH providers prioritise the hardest to reach including those
+
+  living remotely and people who are disadvantaged. Objectives Decision
+
+  makers need access to high-quality evidence on what works in WASH
+
+  promotion in different contexts, and for different groups of people, to
+
+  reach the most disadvantaged populations and thereby achieve universal
+
+  targets. The WASH evidence map is envisioned as a tool for commissioners
+
+  and researchers to identify existing studies to fill synthesis gaps, as
+
+  well as helping to prioritise new studies where there are gaps in
+
+  knowledge. It also supports policymakers and practitioners to navigate
+
+  the evidence base, including presenting critically appraised findings
+
+  from existing systematic reviews. Methods This evidence map presents
+
+  impact evaluations and systematic reviews from the WASH sector,
+
+  organised according to the types of intervention mechanisms, WASH
+
+  technologies promoted, and outcomes measured. It is based on a framework
+
+  of intervention mechanisms (e.g., behaviour change triggering or
+
+  microloans) and outcomes along the causal pathway, specifically
+
+  behavioural outcomes (e.g., handwashing and food hygiene practices),
+
+  ill-health outcomes (e.g., diarrhoeal morbidity and mortality),
+
+  nutrition and socioeconomic outcomes (e.g., school absenteeism and
+
+  household income). The map also provides filters to examine the evidence
+
+  for a particular WASH technology (e.g., latrines), place of use (e.g.,
+
+  home, school or health facility), location (e.g., global region,
+
+  country, rural and urban) and group (e.g., people living with
+
+  disability). Systematic searches for published and unpublished
+
+  literature and trial registries were conducted of studies in low- and
+
+  middle-income countries (LMICs). Searches were conducted in March 2018,
+
+  and searches for completed trials were done in May 2020. Coding of
+
+  information for the map was done by two authors working independently.
+
+  Impact evaluations were critically appraised according to methods of
+
+  conduct and reporting. Systematic reviews were critically appraised
+
+  using a new approach to assess theory-based, mixed-methods evidence
+
+  synthesis. Results There has been an enormous growth in impact
+
+  evaluations and systematic reviews of WASH interventions since the
+
+  International Year of Sanitation, 2008. There are now at least 367
+
+  completed or ongoing rigorous impact evaluations in LMICs, nearly
+
+  three-quarters of which have been conducted since 2008, plus 43
+
+  systematic reviews. Studies have been done in 83 LMICs, with a high
+
+  concentration in Bangladesh, India, and Kenya. WASH sector programming
+
+  has increasingly shifted in focus from what technology to supply (e.g.
+
+  , a handwashing station or child''s potty), to the best way in which to
+
+  do so to promote demand. Research also covers a broader set of
+
+  intervention mechanisms. For example, there has been increased interest
+
+  in behaviour change communication using psychosocial ``triggering{''''},
+
+  such as social marketing and community-led total sanitation. These
+
+  studies report primarily on behavioural outcomes. With the advent of
+
+  large-scale funding, in particular by the Bill \& Melinda Gates
+
+  Foundation, there has been a substantial increase in the number of
+
+  studies on sanitation technologies, particularly latrines. Sustaining
+
+  behaviour is fundamental for sustaining health and other quality of life
+
+  improvements. However, few studies have been done of intervention
+
+  mechanisms for, or measuring outcomes on sustained adoption of latrines
+
+  to stop open defaecation. There has also been some increase in the
+
+  number of studies looking at outcomes and interventions that
+
+  disproportionately affect women and girls, who quite literally carry
+
+  most of the burden of poor water and sanitation access. However, most
+
+  studies do not report sex disaggregated outcomes, let alone integrate
+
+  gender analysis into their framework. Other vulnerable populations are
+
+  even less addressed; no studies eligible for inclusion in the map were
+
+  done of interventions targeting, or reporting on outcomes for, people
+
+  living with disabilities. We were only able to find a single controlled
+
+  evaluation of WASH interventions in a health care facility, in spite of
+
+  the importance of WASH in health facilities in global policy debates.
+
+  The quality of impact evaluations has improved, such as the use of
+
+  controlled designs as standard, attention to addressing reporting
+
+  biases, and adequate cluster sample size. However, there remain
+
+  important concerns about quality of reporting. The quality and
+
+  usefulness of systematic reviews for policy is also improving, which
+
+  draw clearer distinctions between intervention mechanisms and synthesise
+
+  the evidence on outcomes along the causal pathway. Adopting
+
+  mixed-methods approaches also provides information for programmes on
+
+  barriers and enablers affecting implementation. Conclusion Ensuring
+
+  everyone has access to appropriate water, sanitation, and hygiene
+
+  facilities is one of the most fundamental of challenges for poverty
+
+  elimination. Researchers and funders need to consider carefully where
+
+  there is the need for new primary evidence, and new syntheses of that
+
+  evidence. This study suggests the following priority areas: Impact
+
+  evaluations incorporating understudied outcomes, such as sustainability
+
+  and slippage, of WASH provision in understudied places of use, such as
+
+  health care facilities, and of interventions targeting, or presenting
+
+  disaggregated data for, vulnerable populations, particularly over the
+
+  life-course and for people living with a disability; Improved reporting
+
+  in impact evaluations, including presentation of participant flow
+
+  diagrams; and Synthesis studies and updates in areas with sufficient
+
+  existing and planned impact evaluations, such as for diarrhoea
+
+  mortality, ARIs, WASH in schools and decentralisation. These studies
+
+  will preferably be conducted as mixed-methods systematic reviews that
+
+  are able to answer questions about programme targeting, implementation,
+
+  effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and compare alternative
+
+  intervention mechanisms to achieve and sustain outcomes in particular
+
+  contexts, preferably using network meta-analysis.'
+affiliation: 'Waddington, HS (Corresponding Author), London Int Dev Ctr, London Sch
+  Hyg \& Trop Med, Environm Hlth Grp, 20 Bloomsbury Sq, London WC1A 2NS, England.
+
+  Chirgwin, Hannah, London Int Dev Ctr, Int Initiat Impact Evaluat 3ie, London, England.
+
+  Cairncross, Sandy, London Sch Hyg \& Trop Med, London, England.
+
+  Zehra, Dua, UCL, London, England.
+
+  Waddington, Hugh Sharma, London Int Dev Ctr, London Sch Hyg \& Trop Med \& Int Initiat
+  Impact Ev, London, England.'
+article-number: e21194
+author: Chirgwin, Hannah and Cairncross, Sandy and Zehra, Dua and Waddington, Hugh
+  Sharma
+author-email: hugh.waddington@lidc.ac.uk
+author_list:
+- family: Chirgwin
+  given: Hannah
+- family: Cairncross
+  given: Sandy
+- family: Zehra
+  given: Dua
+- family: Waddington
+  given: Hugh Sharma
+da: '2023-09-28'
+doi: 10.1002/cl2.1194
+eissn: 1891-1803
+files: []
+journal: CAMPBELL SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
+keywords-plus: 'RANDOMIZED-CONTROLLED-TRIAL; POINT-OF-USE; HOUSEHOLD DRINKING-WATER;
+
+  REDUCE CHILDHOOD DIARRHEA; WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY; SCHOOL-BASED WATER; LED
+
+  TOTAL SANITATION; TRANSMITTED HELMINTH INFECTIONS; PRIVATE-SECTOR
+
+  PARTICIPATION; ACUTE RESPIRATORY-INFECTIONS'
+language: English
+month: DEC
+number: '4'
+number-of-cited-references: '887'
+orcid-numbers: Sharma Waddington, Hugh/0000-0003-3859-3342
+papis_id: 6b9c17a583f40c13f97b820b4bfbf584
+ref: Chirgwin2021interventionspromoti
+researcherid-numbers: Sharma Waddington, Hugh/CAF-8169-2022
+times-cited: '9'
+title: 'Interventions promoting uptake of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) technologies
+  in low- and middle-income countries: An evidence and gap map of effectiveness studies'
+type: Article
+unique-id: WOS:000731087200002
+usage-count-last-180-days: '7'
+usage-count-since-2013: '40'
+volume: '17'
+web-of-science-categories: Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary
+year: '2021'