↓ Skip to main content

Hygiene programming during outbreaks: a qualitative case study of the humanitarian response during the Ebola outbreak in Liberia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Hygiene programming during outbreaks: a qualitative case study of the humanitarian response during the Ebola outbreak in Liberia
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2020
DOI 10.1186/s12889-020-8240-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandra Czerniewska, Sian White

Abstract

Hygiene promotion is a cornerstone of humanitarian response during infectious disease outbreaks. Despite this, we know little about how humanitarian organisations design, deliver or monitor hygiene programmes, or about what works to change hygiene behaviours in outbreak settings. This study describes humanitarian perspectives on changing behaviours in crises, through a case study of hygiene promotion during the 2014-2016 Liberian Ebola outbreak. Our aim was to aid better understanding of decision making in high-stress situations where there is little precedent or evidence, and to prompt reflection within the sector around how to improve and support this. We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with fourteen purposively-sampled individuals (key informants) from international organisations involved in hygiene behaviour change during the outbreak. Through thematic analysis we identified the decisions that were made and processes that were followed to design, deliver and monitor interventions. We compared our findings with theory-driven processes used to design behaviour change interventions in non-outbreak situations. Humanitarians predominantly focussed on providing hygiene products (e.g. buckets, soap, gloves) and delivering messages through posters, radio and community meetings. They faced challenges in defining which hygiene behaviours to promote. Assessments focused on understanding infrastructural needs, but omitted systematic assessments of hygiene behaviours or their determinants. Humanitarians assumed that fear and disease awareness would be the most powerful motivators for behaviour change. They thought that behaviour change techniques used in non-emergency settings were too 'experimental', and were beyond the skillset of most humanitarian actors. Monitoring focussed on inputs and outputs rather than behavioural impact. The experiences of humanitarians allowed us to identify areas that could be strengthened when designing hygiene programmes in future outbreaks. Specifically, we identified a need for rapid research methods to explore behavioural determinants; increased skills training for frontline staff, and increased operational research to explore behaviour change strategies that are suited to outbreak situations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 27%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 26 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 14%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Engineering 5 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 30 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 28 September 2021.
All research outputs
#6,249,740
of 23,849,241 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#6,412
of 15,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,160
of 456,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#119
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,241 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,649 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 456,283 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 294 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 59% of its contemporaries.