@article{ bain_fecal_2014,
  title = {Fecal Contamination of Drinking-Water in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis},
  volume = {11},
  issn = {1549-1277},
  shorttitle = {Fecal Contamination of Drinking-Water in Low- and Middle-Income Countries},
  url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4011876/},
  doi = {10.1371/journal.pmed.1001644},
  abstract = {Robert Bain and colleagues conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether water from “improved” sources is less likely to contain fecal contamination than “unimproved” sources and find that access to an “improved source” provides a measure of sanitary protection but does not ensure water is free of fecal contamination., Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Background
Access to safe drinking-water is a fundamental requirement for good health and is also a human right. Global access to safe drinking-water is monitored by {WHO} and {UNICEF} using as an indicator “use of an improved source,” which does not account for water quality measurements. Our objectives were to determine whether water from “improved” sources is less likely to contain fecal contamination than “unimproved” sources and to assess the extent to which contamination varies by source type and setting.

Methods and Findings
Studies in Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish were identified from online databases, including {PubMed} and Web of Science, and grey literature. Studies in low- and middle-income countries published between 1990 and August 2013 that assessed drinking-water for the presence of Escherichia coli or thermotolerant coliforms ({TTC}) were included provided they associated results with a particular source type. In total 319 studies were included, reporting on 96,737 water samples. The odds of contamination within a given study were considerably lower for “improved” sources than “unimproved” sources (odds ratio [{OR}] = 0.15 [0.10–0.21], I2 = 80.3% [72.9–85.6]). However over a quarter of samples from improved sources contained fecal contamination in 38% of 191 studies. Water sources in low-income countries ({OR} = 2.37 [1.52–3.71]; p{\textless}0.001) and rural areas ({OR} = 2.37 [1.47–3.81] p{\textless}0.001) were more likely to be contaminated. Studies rarely reported stored water quality or sanitary risks and few achieved robust random selection. Safety may be overestimated due to infrequent water sampling and deterioration in quality prior to consumption.

Conclusion
Access to an “improved source” provides a measure of sanitary protection but does not ensure water is free of fecal contamination nor is it consistent between source types or settings. International estimates therefore greatly overstate use of safe drinking-water and do not fully reflect disparities in access. An enhanced monitoring strategy would combine indicators of sanitary protection with measures of water quality., Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Background
Access to clean water is fundamental to human health. The importance of water to human health and wellbeing is encapsulated in the Human Right to Water, reaffirmed by the United Nations in 2010, which entitles everyone to “sufficient, safe, acceptable and physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses.” A step towards such universal access to water is Millennium Development Goal ({MDG}) target 7c that aims to halve the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking-water. One of the indicators to help monitor progress towards this target used by the Joint Monitoring Project ({JMP}—an initiative of the World Health Organization and {UNICEF}) is “use of an improved source.” Improved sources include piped water into a dwelling, yard, or plot, or a standpipe, borehole, and protected dug well. Unimproved sources are those that do not protect water from outside contamination, such as unprotected wells, unprotected springs, and surface waters.

Why Was This Study Done?
While this simple categorization may reflect established principles of sanitary protection, this indicator has been criticized for not adequately reflecting safety, suggesting that reported access to safe water might be overestimated by billions of people by not accounting for microbial water safety or more fully accounting for sanitary status. So the researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether water from improved sources is less likely to exceed health-based guidelines for microbial water quality than water from unimproved sources and to what extent microbial contamination varies between source types, between countries, and between rural and urban areas.

What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers comprehensively searched the literature to find appropriate studies that investigated fecal contamination of all types of drinking-water in low and middle-income countries. The researchers included studies that contained extractable data on Escherichia coli or thermotolerant coliform (the {WHO} recommended indicators of fecal contamination) collected by appropriate techniques. The authors also assessed studies for bias and quality and used a statistical method (random effects meta-regression) to investigate risk factors and settings where fecal contamination of water sources was most common., Using these methods, the authors included 319 studies reporting on 96,737 water samples. Most studies were from sub-Saharan Africa, southern Asia, or Latin America and the Caribbean. They found that overall, the odds (chance) of contamination within a given study were considerably lower for “improved” sources than “unimproved” sources (odds ratio = 0.15). However, in 38% of 191 studies, over a quarter of samples from improved sources contained fecal contamination. In particular, protected dug wells were rarely free of fecal contamination. The researchers also found that water sources in low-income countries, and rural areas were more likely to be contaminated (both had odds ratios of 2.37).

What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings show that while water from improved sources is less likely to contain fecal contamination than unimproved sources, they are not consistently safe. This study also provides evidence that by equating “improved” with “safe,” the number of people with access to a safe water source has been greatly overstated, and suggests that a large number and proportion of the world's population use unsafe water. As studies rarely reported stored water quality or sanitary risks, the accuracy of these findings may be limited. Nevertheless, the findings from this study suggest that the Global Burden of Disease 2010 may greatly underestimate diarrheal disease burden by assuming zero risk from improved water sources and that new indicators are needed to assess access to safe drinking water. Therefore, greater use should be made of other measures, such as sanitary inspections, to provide a complementary means of assessing safety and to help identify corrective actions to prevent water contamination.

Additional Information
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001644.},
  number = {5},
  urldate = {2015-01-15},
  journal = {{PLoS} Medicine},
  author = {Bain, Robert and Cronk, Ryan and Wright, Jim and Yang, Hong and Slaymaker, Tom and Bartram, Jamie},
  month = {May},
  year = {2014},
  pmid = {24800926},
  pmcid = {PMC4011876},
  file = {PubMed Central Full Text PDF:files/213/Bain et al. - 2014 - Fecal Contamination of Drinking-Water in Low- and .pdf:application/pdf}
}

{"_id":"2k7Jb8HoFvKWTuAev","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Bain, R.","Cronk, R.","Wright, J.","Yang, H.","Slaymaker, T.","Bartram, J."],"bibbaseid":"bain-cronk-wright-yang-slaymaker-bartram-fecalcontaminationofdrinkingwaterinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis-2014","bibdata":{"abstract":"Robert Bain and colleagues conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether water from “improved” sources is less likely to contain fecal contamination than “unimproved” sources and find that access to an “improved source” provides a measure of sanitary protection but does not ensure water is free of fecal contamination., Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary Background Access to safe drinking-water is a fundamental requirement for good health and is also a human right. Global access to safe drinking-water is monitored by WHO and UNICEF using as an indicator “use of an improved source,” which does not account for water quality measurements. Our objectives were to determine whether water from “improved” sources is less likely to contain fecal contamination than “unimproved” sources and to assess the extent to which contamination varies by source type and setting. Methods and Findings Studies in Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish were identified from online databases, including PubMed and Web of Science, and grey literature. Studies in low- and middle-income countries published between 1990 and August 2013 that assessed drinking-water for the presence of Escherichia coli or thermotolerant coliforms (TTC) were included provided they associated results with a particular source type. In total 319 studies were included, reporting on 96,737 water samples. The odds of contamination within a given study were considerably lower for “improved” sources than “unimproved” sources (odds ratio [OR] = 0.15 [0.10–0.21], I2 = 80.3% [72.9–85.6]). However over a quarter of samples from improved sources contained fecal contamination in 38% of 191 studies. Water sources in low-income countries (OR = 2.37 [1.52–3.71]; p\\textless0.001) and rural areas (OR = 2.37 [1.47–3.81] p\\textless0.001) were more likely to be contaminated. Studies rarely reported stored water quality or sanitary risks and few achieved robust random selection. Safety may be overestimated due to infrequent water sampling and deterioration in quality prior to consumption. Conclusion Access to an “improved source” provides a measure of sanitary protection but does not ensure water is free of fecal contamination nor is it consistent between source types or settings. International estimates therefore greatly overstate use of safe drinking-water and do not fully reflect disparities in access. An enhanced monitoring strategy would combine indicators of sanitary protection with measures of water quality., Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary Background Access to clean water is fundamental to human health. The importance of water to human health and wellbeing is encapsulated in the Human Right to Water, reaffirmed by the United Nations in 2010, which entitles everyone to “sufficient, safe, acceptable and physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses.” A step towards such universal access to water is Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target 7c that aims to halve the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking-water. One of the indicators to help monitor progress towards this target used by the Joint Monitoring Project (JMP—an initiative of the World Health Organization and UNICEF) is “use of an improved source.” Improved sources include piped water into a dwelling, yard, or plot, or a standpipe, borehole, and protected dug well. Unimproved sources are those that do not protect water from outside contamination, such as unprotected wells, unprotected springs, and surface waters. Why Was This Study Done? While this simple categorization may reflect established principles of sanitary protection, this indicator has been criticized for not adequately reflecting safety, suggesting that reported access to safe water might be overestimated by billions of people by not accounting for microbial water safety or more fully accounting for sanitary status. So the researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether water from improved sources is less likely to exceed health-based guidelines for microbial water quality than water from unimproved sources and to what extent microbial contamination varies between source types, between countries, and between rural and urban areas. What Did the Researchers Do and Find? The researchers comprehensively searched the literature to find appropriate studies that investigated fecal contamination of all types of drinking-water in low and middle-income countries. The researchers included studies that contained extractable data on Escherichia coli or thermotolerant coliform (the WHO recommended indicators of fecal contamination) collected by appropriate techniques. The authors also assessed studies for bias and quality and used a statistical method (random effects meta-regression) to investigate risk factors and settings where fecal contamination of water sources was most common., Using these methods, the authors included 319 studies reporting on 96,737 water samples. Most studies were from sub-Saharan Africa, southern Asia, or Latin America and the Caribbean. They found that overall, the odds (chance) of contamination within a given study were considerably lower for “improved” sources than “unimproved” sources (odds ratio = 0.15). However, in 38% of 191 studies, over a quarter of samples from improved sources contained fecal contamination. In particular, protected dug wells were rarely free of fecal contamination. The researchers also found that water sources in low-income countries, and rural areas were more likely to be contaminated (both had odds ratios of 2.37). What Do These Findings Mean? These findings show that while water from improved sources is less likely to contain fecal contamination than unimproved sources, they are not consistently safe. This study also provides evidence that by equating “improved” with “safe,” the number of people with access to a safe water source has been greatly overstated, and suggests that a large number and proportion of the world's population use unsafe water. As studies rarely reported stored water quality or sanitary risks, the accuracy of these findings may be limited. Nevertheless, the findings from this study suggest that the Global Burden of Disease 2010 may greatly underestimate diarrheal disease burden by assuming zero risk from improved water sources and that new indicators are needed to assess access to safe drinking water. Therefore, greater use should be made of other measures, such as sanitary inspections, to provide a complementary means of assessing safety and to help identify corrective actions to prevent water contamination. Additional Information Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001644.","author":["Bain, Robert","Cronk, Ryan","Wright, Jim","Yang, Hong","Slaymaker, Tom","Bartram, Jamie"],"author_short":["Bain, R.","Cronk, R.","Wright, J.","Yang, H.","Slaymaker, T.","Bartram, J."],"bibtex":"@article{ bain_fecal_2014,\n title = {Fecal Contamination of Drinking-Water in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis},\n volume = {11},\n issn = {1549-1277},\n shorttitle = {Fecal Contamination of Drinking-Water in Low- and Middle-Income Countries},\n url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4011876/},\n doi = {10.1371/journal.pmed.1001644},\n abstract = {Robert Bain and colleagues conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether water from “improved” sources is less likely to contain fecal contamination than “unimproved” sources and find that access to an “improved source” provides a measure of sanitary protection but does not ensure water is free of fecal contamination., Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary\n\nBackground\nAccess to safe drinking-water is a fundamental requirement for good health and is also a human right. Global access to safe drinking-water is monitored by {WHO} and {UNICEF} using as an indicator “use of an improved source,” which does not account for water quality measurements. Our objectives were to determine whether water from “improved” sources is less likely to contain fecal contamination than “unimproved” sources and to assess the extent to which contamination varies by source type and setting.\n\nMethods and Findings\nStudies in Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish were identified from online databases, including {PubMed} and Web of Science, and grey literature. Studies in low- and middle-income countries published between 1990 and August 2013 that assessed drinking-water for the presence of Escherichia coli or thermotolerant coliforms ({TTC}) were included provided they associated results with a particular source type. In total 319 studies were included, reporting on 96,737 water samples. The odds of contamination within a given study were considerably lower for “improved” sources than “unimproved” sources (odds ratio [{OR}] = 0.15 [0.10–0.21], I2 = 80.3% [72.9–85.6]). However over a quarter of samples from improved sources contained fecal contamination in 38% of 191 studies. Water sources in low-income countries ({OR} = 2.37 [1.52–3.71]; p{\\textless}0.001) and rural areas ({OR} = 2.37 [1.47–3.81] p{\\textless}0.001) were more likely to be contaminated. Studies rarely reported stored water quality or sanitary risks and few achieved robust random selection. Safety may be overestimated due to infrequent water sampling and deterioration in quality prior to consumption.\n\nConclusion\nAccess to an “improved source” provides a measure of sanitary protection but does not ensure water is free of fecal contamination nor is it consistent between source types or settings. International estimates therefore greatly overstate use of safe drinking-water and do not fully reflect disparities in access. An enhanced monitoring strategy would combine indicators of sanitary protection with measures of water quality., Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary\n\nBackground\nAccess to clean water is fundamental to human health. The importance of water to human health and wellbeing is encapsulated in the Human Right to Water, reaffirmed by the United Nations in 2010, which entitles everyone to “sufficient, safe, acceptable and physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses.” A step towards such universal access to water is Millennium Development Goal ({MDG}) target 7c that aims to halve the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking-water. One of the indicators to help monitor progress towards this target used by the Joint Monitoring Project ({JMP}—an initiative of the World Health Organization and {UNICEF}) is “use of an improved source.” Improved sources include piped water into a dwelling, yard, or plot, or a standpipe, borehole, and protected dug well. Unimproved sources are those that do not protect water from outside contamination, such as unprotected wells, unprotected springs, and surface waters.\n\nWhy Was This Study Done?\nWhile this simple categorization may reflect established principles of sanitary protection, this indicator has been criticized for not adequately reflecting safety, suggesting that reported access to safe water might be overestimated by billions of people by not accounting for microbial water safety or more fully accounting for sanitary status. So the researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether water from improved sources is less likely to exceed health-based guidelines for microbial water quality than water from unimproved sources and to what extent microbial contamination varies between source types, between countries, and between rural and urban areas.\n\nWhat Did the Researchers Do and Find?\nThe researchers comprehensively searched the literature to find appropriate studies that investigated fecal contamination of all types of drinking-water in low and middle-income countries. The researchers included studies that contained extractable data on Escherichia coli or thermotolerant coliform (the {WHO} recommended indicators of fecal contamination) collected by appropriate techniques. The authors also assessed studies for bias and quality and used a statistical method (random effects meta-regression) to investigate risk factors and settings where fecal contamination of water sources was most common., Using these methods, the authors included 319 studies reporting on 96,737 water samples. Most studies were from sub-Saharan Africa, southern Asia, or Latin America and the Caribbean. They found that overall, the odds (chance) of contamination within a given study were considerably lower for “improved” sources than “unimproved” sources (odds ratio = 0.15). However, in 38% of 191 studies, over a quarter of samples from improved sources contained fecal contamination. In particular, protected dug wells were rarely free of fecal contamination. The researchers also found that water sources in low-income countries, and rural areas were more likely to be contaminated (both had odds ratios of 2.37).\n\nWhat Do These Findings Mean?\nThese findings show that while water from improved sources is less likely to contain fecal contamination than unimproved sources, they are not consistently safe. This study also provides evidence that by equating “improved” with “safe,” the number of people with access to a safe water source has been greatly overstated, and suggests that a large number and proportion of the world's population use unsafe water. As studies rarely reported stored water quality or sanitary risks, the accuracy of these findings may be limited. Nevertheless, the findings from this study suggest that the Global Burden of Disease 2010 may greatly underestimate diarrheal disease burden by assuming zero risk from improved water sources and that new indicators are needed to assess access to safe drinking water. Therefore, greater use should be made of other measures, such as sanitary inspections, to provide a complementary means of assessing safety and to help identify corrective actions to prevent water contamination.\n\nAdditional Information\nPlease access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001644.},\n number = {5},\n urldate = {2015-01-15},\n journal = {{PLoS} Medicine},\n author = {Bain, Robert and Cronk, Ryan and Wright, Jim and Yang, Hong and Slaymaker, Tom and Bartram, Jamie},\n month = {May},\n year = {2014},\n pmid = {24800926},\n pmcid = {PMC4011876},\n file = {PubMed Central Full Text PDF:files/213/Bain et al. - 2014 - Fecal Contamination of Drinking-Water in Low- and .pdf:application/pdf}\n}","bibtype":"article","doi":"10.1371/journal.pmed.1001644","file":"PubMed Central Full Text PDF:files/213/Bain et al. - 2014 - Fecal Contamination of Drinking-Water in Low- and .pdf:application/pdf","id":"bain_fecal_2014","issn":"1549-1277","journal":"PLoS Medicine","key":"bain_fecal_2014","month":"May","number":"5","pmcid":"PMC4011876","pmid":"24800926","shorttitle":"Fecal Contamination of Drinking-Water in Low- and Middle-Income Countries","title":"Fecal Contamination of Drinking-Water in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","type":"article","url":"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4011876/","urldate":"2015-01-15","volume":"11","year":"2014","bibbaseid":"bain-cronk-wright-yang-slaymaker-bartram-fecalcontaminationofdrinkingwaterinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis-2014","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4011876/"},"downloads":0,"html":""},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://pages.iu.edu/~dapolley/sample_ir/sample_ir.bib","creationDate":"2015-01-15T17:42:21.189Z","downloads":0,"keywords":[],"search_terms":["fecal","contamination","drinking","water","low","middle","income","countries","systematic","review","meta","analysis","bain","cronk","wright","yang","slaymaker","bartram"],"title":"Fecal Contamination of Drinking-Water in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","year":2014,"dataSources":["J7nAgJehXxCvFfnSX"]}