A comparative review of water disinfection methods appropriate for developing countries and their efficacy, cost-efficiency, and usability

Developing countries are heavily burdened by limited access to safe drinking water and subsequent water-related diseases. Numerous water treatment interventions combat this public health crisis, encompassing both traditional and less-common methods. Of these, water disinfection serves as an important means to provide safe drinking water. Existing literature discusses a wide range of traditional treatment options and encourages the use of multi-barrier approaches including coagulation-flocculation, filtration, and disinfection. Most sources do not delve into approaches specifically appropriate for developing countries, nor do they exclusively examine water disinfection methods.^ The objective of this review is to focus on an extensive range of chemical, physio-chemical, and physical water disinfection techniques to provide a compilation, description and evaluation of options available. Such an objective provides further understanding and knowledge to better inform water treatment interventions and explores alternate means of water disinfection appropriate for developing countries. Appropriateness for developing countries corresponds to the effectiveness of an available, easy to use disinfection technique at providing safe drinking water at a low cost.^ Among chemical disinfectants, SWS sodium hypochlorite solution is preferred over sodium hypochlorite bleach due to consistent concentrations. Tablet forms are highly recommended chemical disinfectants because they are effective and very easy to use, but also because they are stable. Examples include sodium dichloroisocyanurate, calcium hypochlorite, and chlorine dioxide, which vary in cost depending on location and availability. Among physio-chemical disinfection options, electrolysis which produces mixed oxidants (MIOX) provides a highly effective disinfection option with a higher upfront cost but very low cost over the long term. Among physical disinfection options, solar disinfection (SODIS) applications are effective, but they treat only a fixed volume of water at a time. They come with higher initial costs but very low on-going costs. Additional effective disinfection techniques may be suitable depending on the location, availability and cost.^

The determinants of improvements in health outcomes and of cost reduction in hospital inpatient care

This study aims to address two research questions. First, ‘Can we identify factors that are determinants both of improved health outcomes and of reduced costs for hospitalized patients with one of six common diagnoses?’ Second, ‘Can we identify other factors that are determinants of improved health outcomes for such hospitalized patients but which are not associated with costs?’ The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2003 to 2006 was employed in this study. The total study sample consisted of hospitals which had at least 30 patients each year for the given diagnosis: 954 hospitals for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), 1552 hospitals for congestive heart failure (CHF), 1120 hospitals for stroke (STR), 1283 hospitals for gastrointestinal hemorrhage (GIH), 979 hospitals for hip fracture (HIP), and 1716 hospitals for pneumonia (PNE). This study used simultaneous equations models to investigate the determinants of improvement in health outcomes and of cost reduction in hospital inpatient care for these six common diagnoses. In addition, the study used instrumental variables and two-stage least squares random effect model for unbalanced panel data estimation. The study concluded that a few factors were determinants of high quality and low cost. Specifically, high specialty was the determinant of high quality and low costs for CHF patients; small hospital size was the determinant of high quality and low costs for AMI patients. Furthermore, CHF patients who were treated in Midwest, South, and West region hospitals had better health outcomes and lower hospital costs than patients who were treated in Northeast region hospitals. Gastrointestinal hemorrhage and pneumonia patients who were treated in South region hospitals also had better health outcomes and lower hospital costs than patients who were treated in Northeast region hospitals. This study found that six non-cost factors were related to health outcomes for a few diagnoses: hospital volume, percentage emergency room admissions for a given diagnosis, hospital competition, specialty, bed size, and hospital region.^