Cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost analyses of promoting handwashing with soap: a systematic review
Ross, I.; Bath, D.; Wells, J.; Dreibelbis, R.; Ejemot-Nwadiaro, R.; Esteves Mills, J.; Greco, G.; Pitt, C.; Cumming, O.
Show abstract
BackgroundPromoting handwashing with soap reduces risk of diarrhoea by 30% and respiratory infections by 17%. Handwashing promotion in non-healthcare settings is widely considered cost-effective, but there is no systematic review on this topic. To inform resource allocation decisions, we reviewed the state and quality of evidence regarding cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost of interventions promoting handwashing with soap in domestic, educational, and childcare settings globally. MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, Global Health, EconLit, and Web of Science for studies published to September 3, 2025, as well as grey literature (PROSPERO CRD42021288727). We included full economic evaluations comparing the cost of two or more interventions with their outcomes. We included interventions promoting the practice of handwashing with soap, including those providing information, motivational campaigns, and/or handwashing facilities. We scored quality of reporting using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. ResultsWe identified 15 studies of which 3 were in high-income countries. Five used empirical data collection to evaluate interventions actually implemented and 10 modelled from secondary data only. Amongst the 3 medium- or high-quality studies reporting cost per disability-adjusted life-year averted, estimates ranged from US$ 37 to 937 (2024 prices). Of these 3 estimates, 2 were cost-effective compared to plausible thresholds for the respective country. In the only medium- or high-quality benefit-cost study, the mean benefit-cost ratio was 2.1 with "medium" levels of handwashing adoption (40% of population) and adherence (50% of those adopting). Few studies measured or modelled adoption of handwashing over time, and none which focused on diarrhoea also valued respiratory infections. ConclusionPromoting handwashing with soap is very likely to be cost-effective for interventions that successfully increase and sustain adoption of handwashing behaviours. More empirical studies are needed, especially those comparing multiple promotion options and valuing reductions in respiratory infections as well as diarrhoea.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Costs of hand hygiene for all in household settings - estimating the price tag for the 46 least developed countries 94%
- Efficacy and effectiveness of hand hygiene-related practices used community settings for removal of organisms from hands: A systematic review 91%
- Modelling the effect of infection prevention and control measures on rate of Mycobacterium tuberculosis transmission to clinic attendees in primary health clinics in South Africa 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Health equity impacts of climate change in the UK: a rapid systematic review and interactive evidence gap map 88%
- Intersecting vulnerabilities: Climatic and demographic contributions to future population exposure to Aedes-borne viruses in the United States 86%
- Unveiling the benefits and gaps of wild pollinators on nutrition and income 85%
Similar papers in this journal
- Factors associated with effectiveness of interventions to prevent obesity in children: a synthesis of evidence from 204 randomized trials 92%
- COVID-19 mass testing in adult social care in England 88%
- Project ITCH: Cross-sectional surveys to understand residential vector control attitudes and practices across New England 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- Integrating water, sanitation, handwashing, and nutrition interventions to reduce child soil-transmitted helminth and Giardia infections: a cluster-randomized controlled trial in rural Kenya 91%
- The potential impact of novel tuberculosis vaccine introduction on economic growth in low- and middle-income countries 90%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.