Skip to content
PaperFren

Randomized trials

Did India’s toilet campaign improve child health?

Patil SR, Arnold BF, Salvatore AL, et al. · PLoS medicine · 2014

Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC

A village-randomized sanitation program raised latrine access and cut open defecation modestly but did not improve child diarrhea, parasites, anemia, or growth.

Study at a glance

Design
RCT — Cluster RCT of 80 villages: Total Sanitation Campaign support vs control
N
N=3390 · Baseline 3,390 children <5 from 1,954 households in 80 villages; ~21-month follow-up
Population
Children under five in rural Madhya Pradesh villages
Outcome
Sanitation facility use, open defecation, and child health endpoints

Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.

Key findings

Intervention villages gained about 19 percentage points in improved sanitation facilities and a smaller (~10%) reduction in open defecation, but child health endpoints did not improve.

Methodology

Investigators cluster-randomized 80 villages in rural Madhya Pradesh to India’s Total Sanitation Campaign support versus control, surveying thousands of children under five at baseline and about 21 months later for sanitation behaviours and health outcomes.

Limitations

Short follow-up and some control-group contamination mean the trial cannot prove sanitation never helps—only that this scaled TSC package did not move health markers enough here.

How this study connects

Role on claims

Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.

  • SupportsRandomized Trialsconcept

    Multiple studies in this library examine randomized trials with empirical patient or population outcomes rather than opinion alone.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

  • SupportsRandomized Trialsconcept

    Intervention villages gained about 19 percentage points in improved sanitation facilities and a smaller (~10%) reduction in open defecation, but child health endpoints did not improve.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

  • SupportsRandomized Trialsconcept

    Effect sizes and settings differ across randomized trials studies — digital vs clinic, trial vs observational — so results should not be pooled casually.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

  • India's Total Sanitation Campaign was cluster-randomised across 80 villages in rural Madhya Pradesh. Intervention villages gained about 19 percentage points in improved sanitation facilities and a smaller (~10%) reduction in open defecation, but child-health endpoints did not improve after about 21 months. Short follow-up and some control-group contamination mean the trial shows this scaled package did not move health markers here, not that sanitation can never help.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

  • Process success and health success are not the same cluster-trial result. TSC moved toilets (~19 percentage points) without moving child health; TB medication monitors moved adherence 40–50% without, in this report, proving cure; SASA! moved IPV and concurrency by about 50% as the intended social outcome. A student who treats 'the cluster intervention worked' as one sentence will misread at least one of these papers.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

Open questions

Tensions this paper is part of

From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.

  • Scope difference — different assays, populations, or outcomes

    Effect sizes and settings differ across randomized trials studies — digital vs clinic, trial vs observational — so results should not be pooled casually.

  • Scope difference — different assays, populations, or outcomes

    Process success and health success are not the same cluster-trial result. TSC moved toilets (~19 percentage points) without moving child health; TB medication monitors moved adherence 40–50% without, in this report, proving cure; SASA! moved IPV and concurrency by about 50% as the intended social outcome. A student who treats 'the cluster intervention worked' as one sentence will misread at least one of these papers.

Related papers in this topic

Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.