Skip to main content
. 2021 Apr 9;10:e62278. doi: 10.7554/eLife.62278

Appendix 1—table 12. Effect of the intervention on enteric infection and diarrhea in children > 2 years old after 24 months.

Prevalence Prevalence ratio (95% CI), p-value
Baseline, aged > 2 years 24 month, aged > 2 years Unadjusted Adjusted*
Any bacterial or protozoan infection†
Control 155/164 (95%) 315/340 (93%) .. ..
Intervention 149/160 (93%) 312/344 (91%) 0.99 (0.93–1.07), p=0.86 0.98 (0.91–1.05), p=0.60
Any STH infection†
Control 103/155 (66%) 113/175 (65%) .. ..
Intervention 86/146 (59%) 121/208 (58%) 1.03 (0.82–1.30), p=0.79 1.05 (0.83–1.32), p=0.69
Diarrhea‡
Control 21/243 (8.6%) 33/273 (12%) .. ..
Intervention 16/210 (7.6%) 31/303 (10%) 0.96 (0.45–2.07), p=0.93 0.82 (0.36–1.86), p=0.63
Any Bacteria
Control 129/164 (79%) 267/340 (79%) .. ..
Intervention 125/160 (78%) 266/344 (77%) 1.00 (0.87–1.15), p=0.98 0.97 (0.84–1.11), p=0.64
Shigella
Control 112/164 (68%) 227/340 (67%) .. ..
Intervention 103/160 (64%) 223/344 (65%) 1.05 (0.87–1.26), p=0.63 1.03 (0.85–1.24), p=0.79
ETEC
Control 46/164 (28%) 93/340 (27%) .. ..
Intervention 52/160 (33%) 100/344 (29%) 0.88 (0.56–1.38), p=0.58 0.74 (0.46–1.20), p=0.22
Campylobacter
Control 12/164 (7.3%) 33/340 (9.7%) .. ..
Intervention 7/160 (4.4%) 20/344 (5.8%) 0.97 (0.33–2.90), p=0.96 1.00 (0.30–3.28), p=0.99
C. difficile
Control 2/164 (1.2%) 6/340 (1.8%) .. ..
Intervention 0/160 (0.0%) 4/344 (1.2%) ..‡ ..‡
E. coli O157
Control 6/164 (3.7%) 21/340 (6.2%) .. ..
Intervention 9/160 (5.6%) 13/344 (3.8%) 0.39 (0.11–1.40), p=0.15 0.47 (0.13–1.78), p=0.27
STEC
Control 2/164 (1.2%) 15/340 (4.4%) .. ..
Intervention 1/160 (0.63%) 13/344 (3.8%) 1.54 (0.12–19.19), p=0.74 1.73 (0.14–20.75), p=0.67
Y. enterocolitica
Control 0/164 (0.0%) 0/340 (0.0%) .. ..
Intervention 0/160 (0.0%) 1/344 (0.29%) ..‡ ..‡
V. cholerae
Control 0/164 (0.0%) 0/340 (0.0%) .. ..
Intervention 0/160 (0.0%) 0/344 (0.0%) ..‡ ..‡
Any Protozoa
Control 123/164 (75%) 250/340 (74%) .. ..
Intervention 121/160 (76%) 245/344 (71%) 0.96 (0.82–1.13), p=0.66 0.94 (0.80–1.11), p=0.47
Giardia
Control 122/164 (74%) 244/340 (72%) .. ..
Intervention 118/160 (74%) 240/344 (70%) 0.99 (0.84–1.16), p=0.86 0.96 (0.81–1.13), p=0.62
Cryptosporidium
Control 1/164 (0.61%) 9/340 (2.6%) .. ..
Intervention 4/160 (2.5%) 8/344 (2.3%) 0.20 (0.02–2.27), p=0.19 0.21 (0.02–2.46), p=0.21
E. histolytica
Control 0/164 (0.0%) 2/340 (0.59%) .. ..
Intervention 3/160 (1.9%) 10/344 (2.9%) ..‡ ..‡
Any virus
Control 19/164 (12%) 39/340 (11%) .. ..
Intervention 16/160 (10%) 43/344 (13%) 1.24 (0.55–2.78), p=0.6 1.44 (0.61–3.38), p=0.41
Norovirus GI/GII
Control 12/164 (7.3%) 34/340 (10%) .. ..
Intervention 13/160 (8.1%) 37/344 (11%) 0.96 (0.39–2.34), p=0.92 1.17 (0.45–3.03), p=0.75
Adenovirus 40/41
Control 6/164 (3.7%) 2/340 (0.59%) .. ..
Intervention 2/160 (1.3%) 6/344 (1.7%) 11 (0.97–119), p=0.053 7.5 (0.72–79), p=0.92
Rotavirus A
Control 1/164 (0.61%) 3/340 (0.88%) .. ..
Intervention 1/160 (0.63%) 1/344 (0.29%) ..‡ ..‡
Coinfection,≥2 GPP pathogens
Control 114/164 (70%) 243/340 (71%) .. ..
Intervention 111/160 (69%) 236/344 (69%) 0.97 (0.82–1.15), p=0.71 0.93 (0.78–1.12), p=0.45
Trichuris
Control 91/155 (59%) 102/175 (58%) .. ..
Intervention 76/146 (52%) 110/208 (53%) 1.04 (0.81–1.33), p=0.78 0.99 (0.77–1.27), p=0.96
Ascaris
Control 50/155 (32%) 61/175 (35%) .. ..
Intervention 39/146 (27%) 47/208 (23%) 0.78 (0.47–1.29), p=0.33 0.86 (0.51–1.44), p=0.57
Coinfection,≥2 STH
Control 38/155 (25%) 50/175 (29%) .. ..
Intervention 29/146 (20%) 36/208 (17%) 0.74 (0.42–1.28), p=0.28 0.72 (0.41–1.29), p=0.27

Analysis includes children >2 year old at baseline or the 24 month visit. Prevalence results are presented as (n/N (%)). All effect estimates are presented as prevalence ratios (ratio of ratios) with 95% confidence intervals and estimated using generalized estimating equations to fit Poisson regression models with robust standard errors.

* Pathogen outcomes adjusted for child age and sex, caregiver’s education, and household wealth index, reported diarrhea also adjusted for baseline presence of a drop-hole cover and reported use of a tap on compound grounds as primary drinking water source.

† Models did not converge due to sparse data.