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. 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. 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%). 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.

中文翻译：

---

水、环境卫生和个人卫生干预措施同行评审评估中的报告背景和实施情况：范围界定审查


为了准确评估环境和公共卫生现场试验的证据，必须将干预措施的背景和实施细节与试验结果进行权衡；然而，关于水、环境卫生和个人卫生 (WASH) 的这些细节缺乏且不一致，限制了证据的外部有效性。为了量化 WASH 评估中背景和实施的报告水平，我们对过去 10 年（2012-2022 年）发表的 40 项最常被引用的 WASH 干预措施评估进行了范围界定审查。我们应用的标准源自对其他部门（包括医疗保健和实施科学）现有报告指南的审查。我们随后审查了主要文章、补充材料、协议和其他相关资源，以评估背景和实施报告的完整性。在我们搜索的最后 25 个报告项目中，所有研究均报告了四个项目——干预名称、方法、地点和时间。超过三分之一的评论文章没有报告五个项目——理论、实施者资格、剂量强度、目标和测量保真度。只有两项研究 (5%) 报告了我们清单中的所有项目。只有 74% 的项目在主文章中找到，其余的在单独的论文中找到 (7%) 或根本没有找到 (19%)。 WASH 实施情况报告的不一致说明了该行业面临的重大挑战。很难知道哪些干预措施正在被实际评估以及如何比较评估结果。这种不一致且不完整的实施报告限制了程序员和政策制定者将可用证据应用于其环境的能力。标准化报告指南将改善 WASH 现场评估证据的应用。