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

Appendix 1—table 15. Effect of the intervention on children with repeated observations at baseline and 24-month visit.

Prevalence Prevalence ratio
Baseline 24 month Unadjusted Adjusted†
Any bacterial or protozoan infection
Control 131/166 (79%) 155/166 (93%) .. ..
Intervention 151/192 (79%) 175/192 (91%) 0.98 (0.87–1.10), p=0.73 0.98 (0.87–1.10), p=0.70
Any STH infection
Control 48/95 (51%) 65/95 (68%) .. ..
Intervention 38/106 (36%) 62/106 (58%) 1.20 (0.84–1.70), p=0.31 1.25 (0.87–1.78), p=0.23
Diarrhea
Control 25/196 (13%) 20/196 (10%) .. ..
Intervention 34/221 (15%) 20/221 (9.1%) 0.72 (0.33–1.58), p=0.41 0.69 (0.31–1.50), p=0.35
Any Bacteria
Control 109/166 (66%) 138/166 (83%) .. ..
Intervention 120/192 (63%) 153/192 (80%) 1.00 (0.84–1.21), p=0.96 1.01 (0.83–1.21), p=0.96
Shigella
Control 66/166 (40%) 121/166 (73%)
Intervention 79/192 (41%) 136/192 (71%) 0.93 (0.71–1.22), p=0.60 0.93 (0.71–1.22), p=0.60
ETEC
Control 47/166 (28%) 47/166 (28%)
Intervention 58/192 (30%) 52/192 (27%) 0.90 (0.55–1.46), p=0.66 0.85 (0.52–1.39), p=0.52
Campylobacter
Control 16/166 (9.6%) 12/166 (7.2%)
Intervention 13/192 (6.8%) 14/192 (7.3%) 1.44 (0.56–3.72), p=0.45 1.52 (0.60–3.83), p=0.37
C. difficile
Control 9/166 (5.4%) 4/166 (2.4%) .. ..
Intervention 8/192 (4.2%) 1/192 (0.52%) 0.28 (0.03–2.95), p=0.29 0.26 (0.03–2.59), p=0.25
E. coli O157
Control 7/166 (4.2%) 9/166 (5.4%) .. ..
Intervention 9/192 (4.7%) 8/192 (4.2%) 0.69 (0.14–3.40), p=0.65 0.59 (0.12–2.93), p=0.52
STEC
Control 2/166 (1.2%) 7/166 (4.2%) .. ..
Intervention 3/192 (1.6%) 7/192 (3.6%) 0.66 (0.07–6.20), p=0.72 0.58 (0.07–4.89), p=0.61
Y. enterocolitica
Control 0/166 (0.0%) 0/166 (0.0%) .. ..
Intervention 0/192 (0.0%) 1/192 (0.52%) ..‡ ..‡
V. cholerae
Control 0/166 (0.0%) 0/166 (0.0%) .. ..
Intervention 0/192 (0.0%) 0/192 (0.0%) ..‡ ..‡
Any Protozoa
Control 89/166 (54%) 121/166 (73%) .. ..
Intervention 109/192 (57%) 138/192 (72%) 0.93 (0.73–1.19), p=0.56 0.90 (0.69–1.15), p=0.39
Giardia
Control 86/166 (52%) 120/166 (72%)
Intervention 104/192 (54%) 135/192 (70%) 0.93 (0.73–1.18), p=0.55 0.89 (0.69–1.15), p=0.38
Cryptosporidium
Control 5/166 (3%) 3/166 (1.8%) .. ..
Intervention 11/192 (5.7%) 4/192 (2.1%) 0.57 (0.06–5.38), p=0.62 0.55 (0.06–4.93), p=0.59
E. histolytica
Control 0/166 (0.0%) 0/166 (0.0%) .. ..
Intervention 2/192 (1%) 8/192 (4.2%) ..‡ ..‡
Any virus
Control 21/166 (13%) 18/166 (11%) .. ..
Intervention 30/192 (16%) 22/192 (11%) 0.86 (0.37–1.97), p=0.72 0.95 (0.41–2.19), p=0.91
Norovirus GI/GII
Control 15/166 (9%) 15/166 (9%) .. ..
Intervention 26/192 (14%) 17/192 (8.8%) 0.65 (0.25–1.69), p=0.38 0.74 (0.28–1.90), p=0.53
Adenovirus 40/41
Control 6/166 (3.6%) 1/166 (0.6%)
Intervention 5/192 (2.6%) 5/192 (2.6%) 6.12 (0.48–78.34), p=0.16 6.01 (0.49–73.94), p=0.16
Rotavirus A
Control 1/166 (0.6%) 2/166 (1.2%) .. ..
Intervention 1/192 (0.52%) 1/192 (0.52%) ..‡ ..‡
Coinfection,≥2 GPP pathogens
Control 89/166 (54%) 120/166 (72%) .. ..
Intervention 102/192 (53%) 132/192 (69%) 0.96 (0.77–1.19), p=0.69 0.95 (0.76–1.19), p=0.67
Trichuris
Control 39/95 (41%) 62/95 (65%) .. ..
Intervention 32/106 (30%) 57/106 (54%) 1.11 (0.74–1.67), p=0.60 1.16 (0.77–1.75), p=0.47
Ascaris
Control 27/95 (28%) 34/95 (36%)
Intervention 19/106 (18%) 21/106 (20%) 0.88 (0.43–1.79), p=0.72 0.89 (0.44–1.79), p=0.74
Coinfection,≥2 STH
Control 18/95 (19%) 31/95 (33%) .. ..
Intervention 13/106 (12%) 16/106 (15%) 0.71 (0.30–1.70), p=0.44 0.72 (0.31–1.69), p=0.46

Analysis includes children with complete observations at baseline and 24-month visits. 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 would not converge due to sparse data.