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

Appendix 1—table 13. Effect of intervention on enteric infection and reported diarrhea in children born into study sites post implementation (post-baseline) and before 12 month visit compared with children of a similar age at baseline (<1 year old).

Prevalence Prevalence ratio
Baseline, children < 1 year old 12 month, children born-in and <1 year old unadjusted adjusted†
Any bacterial or protozoan infection
Control 57/109 (52%) 31/48 (65%) .. ..
Intervention 51/99 (52%) 32/55 (58%) 0.89 (0.60–1.33), p=0.58 0.97 (0.65–1.45), p=0.90
Any STH infection
Control 17/93 (18%) 3/25 (12%) .. ..
Intervention 13/92 (14%) 4/32 (13%) 1.31 (0.32–5.42), p=0.71 1.38 (0.35–5.45), p=0.65
Diarrhea
Control 19/138 (14%) 6/50 (12%) .. ..
Intervention 18/120 (15%) 13/69 (19%) 1.38 (0.47–4.01), p=0.56 1.80 (0.35–9.31), p=0.48
Any Bacteria
Control 53/109 (49%) 24/48 (50%) .. ..
Intervention 41/99 (41%) 29/55 (53%) 1.22 (0.75–1.98), p=0.43 1.28 (0.78–2.10), p=0.33
Shigella
Control 10/109 (9.2%) 9/48 (19%) .. ..
Intervention 9/99 (9.1%) 9/55 (16%) 0.87 (0.26–2.91), p=0.82 0.85 (0.26–2.81), p=0.79
ETEC
Control 25/109 (23%) 12/48 (25%) .. ..
Intervention 22/99 (22%) 11/55 (20%) 0.82 (0.34–1.99), p=0.66 0.80 (0.33–1.92), p=0.62
Campylobacter
Control 14/109 (13%) 4/48 (8.3%) .. ..
Intervention 8/99 (8.1%) 5/55 (9.1%) 1.76 (0.38–8.09), p=0.47 2.68 (0.59–12.2), p=0.20
C. difficile
Control 13/109 (12%) 7/48 (15%) .. ..
Intervention 10/99 (10%) 9/55 (16%) 1.37 (0.42–4.45), p=0.60 1.49 (0.46–4.89), p=0.51
E. coli O157
Control 4/109 (3.7%) 1/48 (2.1%) .. ..
Intervention 2/99 (2%) 0/55 (0.0%) 0.01 (0.00–0.19), p=0.001 ..‡
STEC
Control 0/109 (0.0%) 0/48 (0.0%) .. ..
Intervention 3/99 (3%) 1/55 (1.8%) ..‡ ..‡
Y. enterocolitica
Control 0/109 (0.0%) 0/48 (0.0%) .. ..
Intervention 0/99 (0.0%) 0/55 (0.0%) ..‡ ..‡
V. cholerae
Control 0/109 (0.0%) 0/48 (0.0%) .. ..
Intervention 0/99 (0.0%) 0/55 (0.0%) ..‡ ..‡
Any Protozoa
Control 14/109 (13%) 15/48 (31%) .. ..
Intervention 22/99 (22%) 9/55 (16%) 0.35 (0.12–1.02), p=0.055 0.40 (0.13–1.20), p=0.10
Giardia
Control 12/109 (11%) 13/48 (27%) .. ..
Intervention 16/99 (16%) 8/55 (15%) 0.41 (0.13–1.24), p=0.11 0.44 (0.14–1.40), p=0.17
Cryptosporidium
Control 2/109 (1.8%) 2/48 (4.2%) .. ..
Intervention 8/99 (8.1%) 2/55 (3.6%) 0.25 (0.02–3.70), p=0.31 0.40 (0.02–7.9), p=0.55
E. histolytica
Control 0/109 (0.0%) 1/48 (2.1%) .. ..
Intervention 1/99 (1%) 0/55 (0.0%) ..‡ ..‡
Any virus
Control 15/109 (14%) 12/48 (25%) .. ..
Intervention 21/99 (21%) 7/55 (13%) 0.33 (0.12–0.92), p=0.033 0.37 (0.14–1.03), p=0.056
Norovirus GI/GII
Control 12/109 (11%) 9/48 (19%) .. ..
Intervention 15/99 (15%) 6/55 (11%) 0.43 (0.13–1.40), p=0.16 0.44 (0.13–1.47), p=0.18
Adenovirus 40/41
Control 4/109 (3.7%) 4/48 (8.3%) .. ..
Intervention 3/99 (3%) 2/55 (3.6%) 0.56 (0.06–5.05), p=0.61 0.91 (0.09–9.49), p=0.94
Rotavirus A
Control 0/109 (0.0%) 0/48 (0.0%) .. ..
Intervention 3/99 (3%) 0/55 (0.0%) ..‡ ..‡
Coinfection,≥2 GPP pathogens
Control 23/109 (21%) 16/48 (33%) .. ..
Intervention 25/99 (25%) 15/55 (27%) 0.73 (0.31–1.71), p=0.47 0.74 (0.33–1.69), p=0.48
Trichuris
Control 10/93 (11%) 3/25 (12%) .. ..
Intervention 10/92 (11%) 4/32 (13%) 1.04 (0.21–5.01), p=0.96 0.98 (0.23–4.29), p=0.98
Ascaris
Control 12/93 (13%) 1/25 (4%) .. ..
Intervention 9/92 (9.8%) 3/32 (9.4%) 2.87 (0.30–27.85), p=0.36 3.10 (0.30–32.5), p=0.35
Coinfection,≥2 STH
Control 5/93 (5.4%) 1/25 (4%) .. ..
Intervention 6/92 (6.5%) 3/32 (9.4%) 1.90 (0.16–22.73), p=0.61 1.76 (0.15–21.0), p=0.66

Analysis includes children < 1 year old at baseline and children born into the study after baseline and <1 year old at the time of the 12-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.