Abstract：
BACKGROUND: To accurately assess evidence from environmental and public health field trials, context and implementation details of the intervention must be weighed with trial results; yet these details are under and inconsistently reported for water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), limiting the external validity of the evidence.
METHODS: To quantify the level of reporting of context and implementation in WASH evaluations, we conducted a scoping review of the 40 most cited evaluations of WASH interventions published in the last 10 years (2012-2022). We applied criteria derived from a review of existing reporting guidance from other sectors including healthcare and implementation science. We subsequently reviewed main articles, supplements, protocols, and other associated resources to assess thoroughness of context and implementation reporting.
RESULTS: Of the final 25 reporting items we searched for, four-intervention name, approach, location, and temporality-were reported by all studies. Five items-theory, implementer qualifications, dose intensity, targeting, and measured fidelity-were not reported in over a third of reviewed articles. Only two studies (5%) reported all items in our checklist. Only 74% of items were found in the main article, while the rest were found in separate papers (7%) or not at all (19%).
CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistent reporting of WASH implementation illustrates a major challenge in the sector. It is difficult to know what interventions are actually being evaluated and how to compare evaluation results. This inconsistent and incomplete implementation reporting limits the ability of programmers and policy makers to apply the available evidence to their contexts. Standardized reporting guidelines would improve the application of the evidence for WASH field evaluations.
METHODS: To quantify the level of reporting of context and implementation in WASH evaluations, we conducted a scoping review of the 40 most cited evaluations of WASH interventions published in the last 10 years (2012-2022). We applied criteria derived from a review of existing reporting guidance from other sectors including healthcare and implementation science. We subsequently reviewed main articles, supplements, protocols, and other associated resources to assess thoroughness of context and implementation reporting.
RESULTS: Of the final 25 reporting items we searched for, four-intervention name, approach, location, and temporality-were reported by all studies. Five items-theory, implementer qualifications, dose intensity, targeting, and measured fidelity-were not reported in over a third of reviewed articles. Only two studies (5%) reported all items in our checklist. Only 74% of items were found in the main article, while the rest were found in separate papers (7%) or not at all (19%).
CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistent reporting of WASH implementation illustrates a major challenge in the sector. It is difficult to know what interventions are actually being evaluated and how to compare evaluation results. This inconsistent and incomplete implementation reporting limits the ability of programmers and policy makers to apply the available evidence to their contexts. Standardized reporting guidelines would improve the application of the evidence for WASH field evaluations.
摘要：
背景：为了准确评估环境和公共卫生现场试验的证据，干预的背景和实施细节必须与试验结果权衡；然而，这些细节在水的报告中并不一致，卫生，卫生（WASH），限制证据的外部有效性。
方法：为了量化WASH评估中的背景和实施情况报告水平，我们对最近10年(2012-2022年)发表的40项引用最多的WASH干预措施评价进行了范围审查.我们应用了对包括医疗保健和实施科学在内的其他部门的现有报告指南进行审查后得出的标准。我们随后回顾了主要文章，补充剂,协议,和其他相关资源，以评估背景和实施报告的彻底性。
结果：在我们搜索的最后25个报告项目中，四个干预的名字，方法，location,和时间性-所有研究都报告了。五个项目-理论，实施者资格，剂量强度,瞄准,和测量的保真度-在超过三分之一的评论文章中没有报告。只有两项研究（5％）报告了我们清单中的所有项目。只有74%的项目是在主要文章中找到的，而其余的则在单独的论文中发现（7％）或根本没有（19％）。
结论：关于WASH实施的不一致报告说明了该行业的一项重大挑战。很难知道实际上正在评估哪些干预措施以及如何比较评估结果。这种不一致和不完整的实现报告限制了程序员和决策者将可用证据应用于其上下文的能力。标准化报告准则将改善WASH实地评估证据的应用。
方法：为了量化WASH评估中的背景和实施情况报告水平，我们对最近10年(2012-2022年)发表的40项引用最多的WASH干预措施评价进行了范围审查.我们应用了对包括医疗保健和实施科学在内的其他部门的现有报告指南进行审查后得出的标准。我们随后回顾了主要文章，补充剂,协议,和其他相关资源，以评估背景和实施报告的彻底性。
结果：在我们搜索的最后25个报告项目中，四个干预的名字，方法，location,和时间性-所有研究都报告了。五个项目-理论，实施者资格，剂量强度,瞄准,和测量的保真度-在超过三分之一的评论文章中没有报告。只有两项研究（5％）报告了我们清单中的所有项目。只有74%的项目是在主要文章中找到的，而其余的则在单独的论文中发现（7％）或根本没有（19％）。
结论：关于WASH实施的不一致报告说明了该行业的一项重大挑战。很难知道实际上正在评估哪些干预措施以及如何比较评估结果。这种不一致和不完整的实现报告限制了程序员和决策者将可用证据应用于其上下文的能力。标准化报告准则将改善WASH实地评估证据的应用。
