Back

What is next for costing WASH in healthcare facilities? Applying evidence for policy and practice

Tantum, L. K.; Cronk, R.; Asingwire, N.; Bohara, P.; Kharal Chettry, L.; Hirai, M.; Kpodzro, S.; Mavi, T.; Miller, J. D.; Ripkey, C.; Sharma, S.; Trinies, V.; Anderson, D. M.

2024-08-20 public and global health
10.1101/2024.08.14.24311992 medRxiv
Show abstract

Efforts to improve and sustain water, sanitation, hygiene (WASH), waste management, and cleaning services in healthcare facilities in low- and middle-income countries are constrained by limited funding. Assessments of the costs of delivering WASH services are critical for guiding financial planning and investment, but many countries lack costed plans for WASH in healthcare facilities. A 2023 UNC Water and Health Conference workshop explored how policymakers and practitioners collect and use cost data and identify strategies for overcoming cost barriers. Presenters shared case studies that showcased the utility of cost data for creating national costed roadmaps, identifying and addressing budgetary shortfalls, and planning WASH improvements in Nepal, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. In discussions, workshop participants described leveraging collaborations with multiple government entities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to collect cost data. Participants also reported using cost data to plan programs and advocate for additional WASH funding. Strategies to coordinate costing approaches across stakeholder groups and standardize data collection tools will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of planning and budgeting for WASH in healthcare facilities. HighlightsO_LILocal and national governments and NGOs routinely collect and use cost data to inform decisions about WASH services in healthcare facilities C_LIO_LIWASH responsibilities are divided across multiple institutions, necessitating coordination for cost data collection C_LIO_LIGovernments have used costing data to create national costed roadmaps and budgets C_LIO_LICosting data support program planning, monitoring, and advocacy C_LI

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
23.3%
2
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.2%
3
PLOS Water
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.8%
50% of probability mass above
4
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
5.0%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.4%
6
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.1%
7
Malaria Journal
48 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.7%
8
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 35%
2.1%
9
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
16 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
10
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
11
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
12
Environmental Health Perspectives
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
13
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
14
Epidemics
104 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
15
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.0%
16
ACS ES&T Water
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
17
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
18
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
19
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.7%
20
GeoHealth
10 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
21
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
22
Environmental Research
46 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
23
Journal of Environmental Management
11 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.5%