Comparison 1. Education and hygiene promotion interventions versus control.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Diarrhoea prevalence – randomized controlled trials (RCTs)	2		Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.93 [0.84, 1.04]
2 Diarrhoea incidence – RCTs	2		Rate Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.71 [0.59, 0.86]
3 Diarrhoea prevalence – controlled cohort studies: SHEWA‐B versus control	2		Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.91 [0.64, 1.28]
4 Diarrhoea prevalence – controlled cross‐sectional: HEP model households versus non‐model	2		Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.26 [0.16, 0.42]
5 Anthropometry – RCTs: height‐for‐age Z score (HAZ)	2		Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)	0.05 [‐0.07, 0.17]
6 Behaviour change – RCTs: latrine use by children	2		Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	1.69 [0.26, 11.04]
7 Behaviour change – RCTs: potty use by children	2		Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	1.37 [0.57, 3.30]
8 Behaviour change – RCTs: safe disposal of child faeces	2		Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	1.01 [0.93, 1.08]
9 Behaviour change – RCTs: appropriate disposal of child faeces	1		Risk Difference (Random, 95% CI)	‐0.01 [‐0.06, 0.03]
10 Behaviour change – RCTs: faeces not observed in yard/ HH	2		Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	1.09 [0.61, 1.94]
11 Behaviour change – RCTs: faeces in compound	1		Risk Difference (Random, 95% CI)	0.00 [‐0.02, 0.02]
12 Behaviour change – controlled cohort studies: safe vs unsafe child faeces disposal	2		Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	1.10 [0.72, 1.67]
13 Behaviour change – controlled cross‐sectional studies: safe vs unsafe child faeces disposal	3		Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
13.1 BRAC	1		Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	4.25 [1.91, 9.46]
13.2 HEP	2		Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	1.36 [0.98, 1.89]