↓ Skip to main content

‘Fit for school’ – a school-based water, sanitation and hygiene programme to improve child health: Results from a longitudinal study in Cambodia, Indonesia and Lao PDR

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
393 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
‘Fit for school’ – a school-based water, sanitation and hygiene programme to improve child health: Results from a longitudinal study in Cambodia, Indonesia and Lao PDR
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4203-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Denise Duijster, Bella Monse, Jed Dimaisip-Nabuab, Pantjawidi Djuharnoko, Roswitha Heinrich-Weltzien, Martin Hobdell, Katrin Kromeyer-Hauschild, Yung Kunthearith, Maria Carmela Mijares-Majini, Nicole Siegmund, Panith Soukhanouvong, Habib Benzian

Abstract

The Fit for School (FIT) programme integrates school health and Water, Sanitation and Hygiene interventions, which are implemented by the Ministries of Education in four Southeast Asian countries. This paper describes the findings of a Health Outcome Study, which aimed to assess the two-year effect of the FIT programme on the parasitological, weight, and oral health status of children attending schools implementing the programme in Cambodia, Indonesia and Lao PDR. The study was a non-randomized clustered controlled trial with a follow-up period of two years. The intervention group consisted of children attending public elementary schools implementing the FIT programme, including daily group handwashing with soap and toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste, biannual school-based deworming; as well as construction of group handwashing facilities. Control schools implemented the regular government health education curriculum and biannual deworming. Per school, a random selection of six to seven-year-old grade-one students was drawn. Data on parasitological infections, anthropometric measurements, dental caries, odontogenic infections and sociodemographic characteristics were collected at baseline and at follow-up (24 months later). Data were analysed using the χ(2)-test, Mann Whitney U-test and multilevel logistic and linear regression. A total of 1847 children (mean age = 6.7 years, range 6.0-8.0 years) participated in the baseline survey. Of these, 1499 children were available for follow-up examination - 478, 486 and 535 children in Cambodia, Indonesia and Lao PDR, respectively. In all three countries, children in intervention schools had a lower increment in the number of decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth between baseline and follow-up, in comparison to children in controls schools. The preventive fraction was 24% at average. The prevalence of soil-transmitted helminth infection (which was unexpectedly low at baseline), the prevalence of thinness and the prevalence of odontogenic infections did not significantly differ between baseline and follow-up, nor between intervention and control schools. The study found that the FIT programme significantly contributed to the prevention of dental caries in children. This study describes the challenges, learnings and, moreover, the importance of conducting real-life implementation research to evaluate health programmes to transform school settings into healthy learning environments for children. The study is retrospectively registered with the German Clinical Trials Register, University of Freiburg (Trial registration number: DRKS00004485, date of registration: 26th of February, 2013).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 393 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 393 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 76 19%
Student > Bachelor 49 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 8%
Researcher 28 7%
Student > Postgraduate 20 5%
Other 59 15%
Unknown 128 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 88 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 48 12%
Social Sciences 15 4%
Environmental Science 15 4%
Engineering 14 4%
Other 75 19%
Unknown 138 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 June 2023.
All research outputs
#3,654,195
of 25,271,884 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,346
of 16,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,209
of 315,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#60
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,271,884 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.