Development of a novel hand cleansing product for low-income contexts: The case of tab soap

Edward Brial; Robert Aunger; Winnie Costancia Muangi; Weston Baxter

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0283741

Abstract

Handwashing with soap is a widely advocated public health measure, but seldom practiced, partly because it is often difficult (especially outside of rich Western country contexts) to make both soap and water readily available in relevant situations. This study used both Behaviour Centred Design and Human Centred Design to guide development of a novel hand cleansing technology appropriate for the context of post-toilet hand cleansing in resource-poor societies. Extensive prototyping and field testing resulted in the pilot production of ‘tab’ soap, a small but durable single-use, decomposable substrate embedded with soap. It can be produced in dispenser roll or tear-off formats. With this affordable solution, one may use soap without worrying about contamination pretty much anytime and anywhere. A small-scale field test showed that all poor households in rural and peri-urban areas in Tanzania included in the proof-of-concept study (N = 12 households) would use the product reliably over the medium term. Tab soap awaits full-scale production and marketing but could make hand cleansing a more popular practice around the world.

Figures

Citation: Brial E, Aunger R, Muangi WC, Baxter W (2023) Development of a novel hand cleansing product for low-income contexts: The case of tab soap. PLoS ONE 18(5): e0283741. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283741

Editor: Sergey V. Popov, Cardiff University, UNITED KINGDOM

Received: August 4, 2022; Accepted: March 15, 2023; Published: May 31, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Brial et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data are contained within the paper and supporting information.

Funding: This project was supported by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO, P07540) and supported by the CLEAR consortium which includes various industry, academic and government partners including the Ministry of Health in Tanzania. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have an interest in the innovation becoming available at scale and are working to develop partnerships, apply for grants and otherwise support such progress though no financial gain is expected. While a product is in development, there are currently no patents associated with this research to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background

Handwashing with soap is a highly effective means of reducing the transmission of many infectious diseases [1–3]. However, it is not often practiced, especially in areas where it could do the most good [4]. A major problem is that soap and water are often difficult to manage in situations where households have very limited incomes [5, 6]. Many handwashing systems (facilities, products, or services) have been suggested to reduce the costs and/or increase the value of handwashing, such as ‘tippy-taps’ (modified jerrycan) [7, 8], and Oxfam buckets (a plastic bucket with tap; https://oxfamapps.org.uk/bucket/). However, few studies suggest that these innovations have created lasting effects on consistent handwashing behaviour. Recently developed handwashing facilities have highlighted the importance of working with design professionals and employing several rounds of iterative prototyping and testing to develop functional and desirable options for handwashing. Examples include the ‘Povu Poa’ (‘Cool Foam’) handwashing station in Kenya (http://demandasme.org/cool-foam/), and the ‘Happy Tap’ project in Vietnam: (http://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files/publications/WSP_Designing_Handwashing_Station_HWWS.pdf). However, they have not proven themselves sustainable at scale (e.g., through development of a profitable business or subsidy extended to a large population over time). Handwashing with soap has long been known as a highly effective means of preventing diarrhoea, especially among the young [9]. The recent COVID-19 global pandemic has further highlighted the importance of handwashing as a public health measure, and the continuing need for improved technologies to deliver this behaviour [10]. This paper describes a case study of a design process to produce a handwashing technology that is grounded in behavioural insight and that is found to be economically viable, technically feasible, desirable, and scalable.

Tanzanian context

We chose to develop and test a handwashing system in a challenging context: rural and peri-urban Tanzania. This context is challenging because it presents few ecological, economic or technological resources and represents a lack of behavioural compliance despite widespread awareness of the need for handwashing with soap [11, 12]. A recent on-ground study of a typical small town found that only 13% of households had a handwash facility available [13]. Nationally, in 2016, only 7% of households had a fixed place to handwash, with soap and water present [14].

This study was designed to create and test a desirable, feasible and viable post-defecation handwashing system (product and/or service) for households without on-site water connections in low-income contexts like those in parts of Tanzania. Its objectives were to:

Realise our aim through a systematic and documented design process following principles of Human Centred Design and Behaviour Centred Design.
Develop this handwashing system to the level of a functioning prototype with a clear business case for its viability
Assess the effectiveness of the prototype to increase handwashing behaviour over a period of time as a proof of concept.

This research project was nested within a wider project to design and deliver a national sanitation and hygiene behaviour change campaign. This project is led by the Tanzanian Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly, and Children, and supported by the CLEAR consortium–a group of international and Tanzanian experts in behaviour change, sanitation, hygiene, marketing, capacity strengthening, research, and management. Consortium partners include the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Innovex Development Consulting, McCann Global Health, EXP Marketing, and Clouds Media Group. The consortium is funded by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO).

Theoretical background

To maximize the possibility of success, this study used a novel design approach which combines Behaviour Centred Design (BCD) theory and process with Human Centred Design (HCD) expertise.

Behaviour centred design.

Behaviour Centred Design (BCD) was developed by academics at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and provides a systematic, theoretically driven, qualitative research framework with a five-step design process to Assess, Build, Create, Deliver and Evaluate a behaviour change program or intervention [15]. Assess is undertaken to understand what is already known about the problem at hand from experts and the published literature. Build augments this knowledge base through further investigation, typically in the field, through formative and other research. Create is the step during which the intervention ideas and materials are actually produced. These plans and materials are then Delivered in the form of activities or contexts within which the target audience comes into contact with them, hopefully to learn something that changes their expectations as to the value of performing the target behaviour. Evaluation is a step in which the program team determines how well the intervention was delivered and what effect it had on desired outcomes, such as use of a new product. Note that the BCD approach suggests you can add a systematic process to creativity, preferably using creative professionals. Each step can be thought of as going through a process of elaboration of creative options and then selection of a particular option to take forward into the next phase, with the most potential to be powerful and effective, along the lines of the ‘double diamond’ approach [16] that sees two rounds of divergent and convergent design activities regarding discovery research, challenge definition, concept development and concept delivery. BCD also provides unique theoretical tools, such as a suggested list of evolved human motives [17] and the concept of a behaviour setting, derived from 1950s ecological psychology [18], which details the various kinds of environmental and psychological factors that impinge to determine behaviour within a circumscribed time and place.

Human centred design.

Human Centred Design (HCD) is a creative approach to product and service design which emphasizes the human perspective at each stage of the process [19, 20]. The intent of this approach is to enable a better fit between human needs and designed offerings to realise more successful solutions. It contrasts with more traditional technology-centric approaches by emphasizing the context of use over functional features of the product or service. The terminology used by different firms varies but always involves working closely with end users and stakeholders to understand the needs and wants of those who will actually use the offering and their unique contextual needs. This process is commonly broken down into three phases: 1) inspiration which consists of research and synthesis; 2) ideation in which ideas are developed, prototyped and refined; and 3) implementation where the offering is deployed. Each of these phases are iterative in nature and aim to produce an overall creative output.

There are similarities between the HCD approach and the qualitative research methods often used in rigorous behaviour change research (e.g., including the BCD approach). However, HCD tends to be less scientifically protocol-driven, without explicit use of behavioural theories, and with a focus on the design team gaining inspiration or insight from participants, rather than systematic collection and analysis of data to explain or describe behavioural practices in a population. Used together, each approach would seem well suited to filling gaps in the other.

Though both processes were followed throughout the research, the terminology used in this reporting aligns with BCD (i.e., ABCDE steps) for simplicity. The A & B steps of BCD roughly correspond to the Inspiration phase of HCD, the C step of BCD to the Ideation phase of HCD and the D & E steps of BCD to the Implementation phase of HCD. The remainder of this paper will adopt this alignment of the steps and phases in the reporting.

Methods

This section will describe the methods used to select households to serve in the study, the means developed to test existing technologies, and to develop and test new possible solutions. Development of the novel technology took place across phases of work corresponding to the ABCDE phases of BCD. Each phase involves a different kind of investigation and the methods used to make these investigations. The methods used are dependent on the type of solutions that result from that phase of the design process. The outcomes from these activities will be described in the subsequent sections.

Ethical permission to conduct the field research was obtained from the LSHTM Ethics Committee (reference 15451) and the Tanzanian Ministry of Health (NIMR/HQ/R.8a/VOL. 1X/3122). All senior project members received training on human subject research ethics. All study participants were given a printed information sheet about the study and provided written consent. Where participants could not read, the information sheet was read to them and they were asked if they had any questions before commencing. A thumb print was recorded in place of a signature if they could not write. In a few instances, minors were present with their parents when conducting research. In those cases, consent was collected from their parents on behalf of their children.

Assess phase

The overarching objective of this phase is to develop a rich initial contextual understanding of the target behaviour. This understanding was achieved through a review of literature and competitive products as well as an inception workshop with relevant stakeholders to further scope the study. Stakeholders included experts from the Centre for Behavioral Studies (CBS) at the University of Dar es Salaam, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences (MUHAS), Unleashed Africa, Bremen Overseas Research and Development Association (BORDA), Centre for Community Initiatives (CCI), LIXIL, and officials from the Tanzanian Ministry of Health. The result of this phase is preparation for qualitative fieldwork in the Build phase.

Build phase

Following the Assess Phase, in-depth formative research and testing of existing offerings was conducted in five communities/villages–two rural and three peri-urban–around Dar es Salaam, Morogoro and Mwanza regions, Tanzania. In all locations, a small number of households were selected to participate in the study (less than five in each setting). Settings and households were purposely selected, based on factors such as access to water and income. Eligibility criteria included:

No private water connection or piped water on-site (i.e., water for handwashing comes from stored water in the household collected from a shared water source outside of the household, meaning residents either collect the water themselves or pay someone to bring it to them–the majority condition in low-income settings)—to ensure even the poorest households would be represented (40% of urban and 93% of rural households lack access to piped on-site water: https://www.globalwaters.org/resources/assets/tanzania-institutional-framework-water-supply)
At least one child under 5 years and at least one child over 5 years in the household (to maximize demographic relevance).

Suitable households were identified through local leaders and guides. Participants were also selected to reflect diversity in social and economic status and hygiene practices. We thus sought to include individuals with unique needs or viewpoints in regard to handwashing in our sample (e.g., elderly, disabled, existing soap users, people with varying occupations, such as teacher, nurse or village chiefs).

A total of fifteen households were included in this phase of research. Five goods sellers and a focus group with local leaders were also interviewed (see Table 1; note use of reference codes when quoting particular findings from formative research). Household visits lasted between 1.5 and 2.5 hours and involved discussions about daily routine, handwashing, water usage, feedback on existing products and responses to potential early product ideas. The main participant was always the woman of the household though men, children or visitors were included as appropriate. Additional research was carried out with sellers of buckets (2) and soap (4) to understand local supply chains and costs within business exchange. Local leaders (5) were interviewed to understand both the perception and influential role they had in the community.

Download:

Table 1. Build phase study samples.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283741.t001

The field research team consisted of three researchers from Imperial College London and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and two Tanzanian translators and research collaborators with experience in design and water/sanitation/hygiene (WASH) projects. The objectives of this field research were the following:

Map behaviour settings and confirm main motives for handwashing in households with no on-site water connections throughout Tanzania.
1. Focus given to props and infrastructure used for handwashing with soap the brief specified the design of a product system.
2. Understanding motivations involved in current handwashing practice and motivations that could be leveraged for novel interventions.
3. Finding behavioural insights. Followed by validation and implementation of insights into building a Theory of Change and design brief to develop concepts.
Understand behaviour settings around acquiring water for the household.

The qualitative research (interviews and observations) included methods used in similar research studies by the BCD research team such as Daily Scripting and Behaviour Trials. These methods were further complemented by HCD tools and methods including Technology probes, Persona development and Immersion Exercises. Table 2 provides a summary of each method used and the methodology to which it tends to belong. All methods were used with verbal and written approval.

Download:

Table 2. Tools/Protocols used during in-depth qualitative research.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283741.t002

Create phase

The overall objective of the Create phase is to translate the learnings from the first two phases into a behavioural intervention. The intention was to develop many (100+) ideas and narrow this possible set of solutions to at least three ideas to the point of a fully defined design concept before selecting a final one to take forward for delivery and evaluation. That final concept was prototoyped and refined through feedback in the field before further development through additional in-field testing. The rationale for this was to increase creative input and mitigate risk of any one idea not working in context.

The Create activities were structured to generate and refine a set of creative interventions with both theoretical and contextual grounding. Insights from the previous phases of work, along with various theoretical and creative prompts (such as the use of fundamental human motives to generate ideas) were used to develop interventions. The quantity of ideas developed at this stage required a range of selection modes. Intuition was used to narrow large amounts of ideas to a more manageable set. This involved designers, WASH specialists and behavioural scientists, all of whom identified preferred ideas with some rationale. Later, additional methods were adopted that refined ideas through theory and context.

A theoretical grounding followed Behaviour Centred Design including an explicit Theory of Change for smaller number of concepts (and all subsequent concept iterations) together with a mapping of behaviour settings from data gathered in the Assess and Build phases and further synthesised at the start of the create phase. This provided a general user journey while mapping social norms, roles and human motives to the actors, props and infrastructure in the setting. This approach also successfully allowed designers, WASH specialists and behavioural scientists to discuss behaviour in context from multiple perspectives. The theory of change was used and refined throughout the work to provide thinking around why change should occur, any potential risks to the desired change taking place and how to inform specific features of the final designs. These theoretical tools were used throughout the generation and refinement of possible interventions.

Contextual grounding was achieved through the use of participatory design techniques wherever possible. This begins with grounding in the deep qualitative work in the previous two phases. After initial ideas were developed and narrowed, immediate feedback was sought in a focus group with several households in Tanzania. Further refinement of the concepts and subsequent prototyping allowed for detailed feedback from a second field visit to Tanzania. During these visits, specific questions were asked about the desirability, feasibility, viability and behavioural influence grounded in the theory of change. In-field changes were made to product concepts were possible based on feedback from potential users of the intervention. This allowed for rapid refinement of the idea and further development of the concept. Finally, a new concept was introduced that included a clear rationale regarding why it should work and enough conceptual definition to understand how it would be made.

0 to 150 ideas.

In a London-based workshop, ideas were generated using ‘How might we’ statements based on insights from the fieldwork as well as through the use of theoretical tools including ideation using different types of human motivation as levers for handwashing. Examples include motivations to wash through Play or Disgust, understood as a desire to interact in a way that develops mastery and avoid pathogen avoidance, respectively [17]. To rapidly generate numerous concepts with an effective means of judging their potential, a range of stakeholders were engaged with broad expertise: local soap sellers, design research experts, object fabrication experts, and end users. Following a review of the findings from the field, the team confirmed the user persona and design criteria; the ‘How might we’ statements were also refined.

150 to 11 ideas.

These resulting ideas were initially reduced through a cyclical process of elimination by grouping repeated or similar concepts. Some of the concepts also clearly required more of a service design intervention than a product driven approach; the team identified that in this case simulating the service would be more valuable than trying to make a product. Finally, ideas were examined against the overall design specifications that had been identified by the creative team (see Table 3 below).

Download:

Table 3. Design specification criteria.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283741.t003

Ideas were eliminated using expert intuition and experience, leading to 11 concepts being chosen for refinement.

11 ideas to 5 concepts.

These 11 ideas were then presented to a focus group in Tanzania. The focus group facilitator asked a panel of 4 women leading households in peri-urban Dar es Salaam to appraise the 11 resulting concepts based on graphical and oral descriptions of the ideas. Additionally, the facilitator also asked them to rank their 3 favourite ideas according to:

The product you would most want to show your friends (to assess the potential use of Status and affiliation as motivational levers).
The best concepts for teaching young children to wash their hands (to assess the potential use of Nurture as a motivational lever).
The product they were most likely buy, and how they would pay for it (to assess the potential business case for such a product).

Based on results from the focus group, five concepts were selected.

5 concepts to 3 prototypes.

Through initial group discussion and from field research feedback, two main design directions were defined from the concepts and design sprint outcomes:

General purpose products that are broadly desirable and make it easier to hand wash through convenience by discounting the (physical, cognitive) effort required, but which could be used for other tasks.
Specialised products that can only be used for hand cleansing, and so may ensure that, if purchased, they will be used only for that purpose. However, these may be less attractive since they are single purpose products.

The theoretical argument that general purpose solutions would change behaviour alone was weaker than the argument for specialised design interventions. This is due to the fact that the former only cause a cognitive discount as opposed to a focused disruption to the post-defecation practices that were reported during early field trips. Also, a general purpose solution had no clear mental model for users that would stimulate hand washing. Consideration of these theoretical factors reduced the number of viable concepts to three.

Following ideation and concept selection, the priorities for the final design specification were also refined, to allow the design teams to complete the detailed design for functioning prototypes for field testing. Additional testing plans were also suggested. Referring back to the original design brief to “design a post-defecation hand cleaning system which encourages hand washing with soap,” it was decided to focus specifically on concepts that would directly address handwashing, which relegated some options. The main dimensions for comparison of the concepts were as follows:

Behavioural scripts for use
Sense of contamination
Desirability
Design engineering requirements
Feasibility/business model

Prototypes were prepared and used in a second field visit in which one set of households were left with prototypes for a week.

This left only three concepts to take forward. Each of the final concepts consisted of illustrations, a short description, three unique selling points and a Theory of Change according to the BCD methodology (see example in Table 4).

Download:

Table 4. Example theory of change.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283741.t004

3 prototypes to 1 final design.

Due to the complexity of real-world operating environments, further prototyping and testing was done in the field. The objective of the prototype field testing was to be able to clearly identify which concept has the biggest potential to encourage post-defecation hand cleansing whilst also being desirable, viable and feasible. From the concepts generated in the design sprint and further analysis of qualitative field work, a design specification for three products was generated. In order to quickly manufacture testable prototypes, rapid prototyping technologies such as 3D printing were used, and detailed manufacturing cost analysis was suspended. The key aim was to generate prototypes to elicit potential user’s mental models of what the design solutions were and how they would or would not use them in their lives. Within this was a focus on specifically generating feedback as it related to the Theory of Change for each concept. Where possible multiple copies of each design were made to test in the field, the aim being to get as many diverse reactions and opinions on the design prototypes so as to be able to better criticise and select the final concept for further development.

The three different prototypes were taken to 10 different homes similar to those in the initial round of in-depth qualitative field research for comparability. The first phase elicited users’ mental models in order to ascertain which sort of technology they preferred. Each household was then assigned a prototype to keep with them for a week. Before returning, the design researchers hacked prototypes by combining design features from the initial prototypes that triggered the most promising responses in the first phase. The second phase consisted of understanding the extent to which users actually engaged with the products.

Finally, these three concepts were assessed according to how desirable they would be from end users, how feasibly technical hurdles could be overcome, the viability of the associated business model and how likely they are to change behaviour. Desirability was assessed through the reactions of users in the field and how well they understood the designs. Included in this was excitement to show the product to others (and other indications of desire) and an attempt to script the use such that it was obvious how the product should be used. Feasibility was determined through an examination of manufacturing (including local manufacturing) capabilities at a reasonable cost and with consideration for potential maintenance. Likelihood to change behaviour was assessed through looking at the potential routines using behaviour setting theory, as well as evidence from the initial field testing. Business model viability was determined in part by the identification of local stakeholders to whom ownership of the project can be transferred to ensure the success of the project once the research team has departed.

Using these criteria and the experience of field testing of the prototypes, the team chose a final winner. Once selected, a testing plan for this winner was also devised by the design and behaviour change team.

Deliver phase

The overall objective of the Delivery Phase was to get to a proof-of-concept intervention based on the results of the previous phases. This phase brings all elements together in a final design that can be tested with a set of potential users. The final concept was therefore developed to the level of a functional model and demonstrated in the previously identified contexts to validate results. In order to develop the final prototype, the final design implementation was defined alongside the parameters for the feasibility study.

Following the prototype selection, the research and design team jointly critiqued the final concept and defined what could be changed and refined given the timeline, budget and ideal feasibility trial. Once the limitations had been agreed, an updated product design specification was created so that the designers could begin detail design and fabrication. Fabrication was conducted in the UK.

Evaluation phase

The overall objective of the Evaluation Phase was to measure the project outcomes against the stated aims. The first aim of this work was to create a desirable, feasible and viable solution that could scale. Desirability refers to the interest the final users have in the product. This includes matching needs and wants of the individual to specific features of the concept to make it appealing. This was evaluated through qualitative feedback in an iterative fashion. Technical feasibility refers to the ability to produce, use and maintain a product in context. This was evaluated through benchmarking against design requirements produced throughout the study and communication with local and international manufacturers. Financial viability was determined to be a product that could exist in the long term without required financial subsidy or ongoing logistical support outside of a typical supply chain. This excluded solutions that would rely on long-term charitable giving or that exceeded the budget of the end users. Attention was also given to the supply chain and the margin local sellers would need to make on any product sales. Prices for these were determined by benchmarking similar product supply chains, enquiring about household expenditure and creating a product which fits within this range.

The second, and most critical, aim was to increase post-defecation rates of hand washing with soap among the target demographic. To evaluate this, we launched a proof-of-concept trial for eight weeks with a total of eighteen households, nine households in Morogoro and nine in Dar es Salaam. Of those, six households in each region were given the intervention and three acted as control and were given bar soap and told this should be used for handwashing. All contact with the households was carried out by a local team from Tanzania consisting of soap sellers recruited for the study and project partners including one of the authors of this paper. The nature of the intervention was such that it required weekly refills and this was carried out by the local soap sellers. Soap sellers were trained on how to do this and provided with compensation for help in their weekly engagement of the project.

Handwashing behaviour is notoriously difficult to evaluate as it can be highly private but involves wide acceptance of what one ought to do; thus self-reported behaviour is often unreliable [21]. Our analysis employed four means of evaluation to develop a more accurate understanding of hand washing behaviour: questionnaires, soap seller reports, electronic monitoring and a debrief with the soap sellers.

Baseline and endline questionnaires were administered to all households from a local Tanzania team including local soap sellers and project partners. The baseline questionnaire gathered data about household demographics, sourcing and usage of water, handwashing after defecation, handwashing before eating and general questions about the colour, shape, size and other attributes of the product (intervention or control). Questions regarding handwashing included general use questions (e.g., location, whether the toilet is shared, water in the location), frequency of use (“How often do you wash your hands after defecating/before eating? Do you use soap?) and automaticity of the handwashing behaviour adapted from [22]. Endline questionnaires asked similar questions to understand any changes in demographics, self-reported handwashing behaviour and the perception of the intervention following use as well as a willingness to engage and use the product in the future. Notably, no households were asked to pay for the product during the trial.

Sellers were also used as informants about the utility and use of the product by households. This allowed for a few important things to occur. Each week when the soap sellers would visit the household, they would document the location of the soap, note the quantity of soap left, refill the soap, indicate a timestamp for the electronic measurement by spinning the spool, and evaluate the condition of the unit. To aid with this, each soap seller was given a phone with camera capability and weekly funds for image transfer. Each time the units were counted that were left, it provided a weekly consumption amount for the household. Together with the number of people in the household, this allowed for an estimate of number of uses per person per day. The other function of this protocol was to ensure the unit was properly reset for electronic measurement.

Each unit consisted of a soap wrapped in a spool around a core. The core of each unit included electronics that would record the time and number of spins each unit made. The purpose of this was to further record when units were used throughout the week. This could help determine, for instance, how many days a week the device was in used and patterns of use such as single piece taken or multiple pieces taken. It would also help assess a concern that soap tabs could be taken just before the soap would be refilled by the soap sellers as a way of showing desired results.

Finally, a debrief with the soap sellers involved in the study helped to understand their perception of the product and use in context. A variation of the spool design–Tear tabs–were placed in two kiosks wherein the sellers were asked to display and try to sell the soap. They reported on the reaction of people who saw the tabs in the shop, how much money they sold tabs for, any indication by customers in terms of how they would use the tab, how people carried the tabs once purchased and any other comments. The soap sellers who did refills (2x2 locations) were asked questions regarding how customers and users responded to the product and their perception of the potential for the product to sell.

Table 5 provides an overview of all the different methods used with households by ABCDE Phase.

Download:

Table 5. Outline of methods used by phase of study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283741.t005

The research team also conducted daily sessions of thematic analysis as an in-field reflective session on the fieldwork findings. Team members would first write down key observations and insights individually and then cluster these into themes altogether. Insights and themes were transcribed and used in comparison to the overarching objectives to help adapt the subsequent day’s research plan. Every few days, the team would synthesise all findings into core opportunities for interventions framed as ‘How Might We’ statements that could be brought into the next stage of the study.

The following sections provide an overview of results by each phase. Finally, general discussion and conclusion sections summarise the implications of the study.

Results

Assess phase–contextual understanding

The objective of the literature review was to establish an overview of the latest understanding and interventions around handwashing with soap in low-income contexts with a particular focus on Tanzania. This informs the field work plan and the design team’s understanding of the hand washing in the context of design for behaviour change.

An overview understanding was achieved through a focused literature review and examination of the competitive landscape. The focused review considered reports of handwashing interventions especially those interventions that are product-based [23–25]. This provided some understanding of critically reviewed interventions and helped to inform aspects of the field work and design planning.

A total of 50 low-income hand wash products were identified through the literature review and internet searches. The search included some products developed for contexts related through low resource, low cost or other parameters such as refugee camps or holiday camping. These products were critically appraised according to desirability, feasibility and viability. The appraisal was based on an examination of available information online such as technical parameters, primary or secondary reviews and financial information. Five key categories of products emerged from the analysis: vernacular, Do it Yourself (DIY), child-focussed, soap-less wash and camping products. A short description of each category together with an illustrative photo and pros and cons are presented in Table 6. The critical assessment of the competitive landscape informs design specifications and fieldwork.

Download:

Table 6. Types of existing handwashing products.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283741.t006

A persona that represents a realistic target user of the end solution was developed through discussion with the stakeholders. The following User Persona was also developed:

“Nana is a mother (head of family), who as well as cooking, laundering and cleaning house, needs to fetch water and buy and maintain all consumables in the house. Nana sometimes works selling either food she cooks, crops from local plot which she grows or small goods from the front of her house, by no means a stable income. Nana is expected to teach the kids and ensure that they wash their hands. She’s also sick of the in-laws passing judgment on her mediocre toilet facilities.”

A review of existing background information was developed together with contextual parameters for design consideration. Stakeholders together represented some understanding of the daily context of the target users including economic, social and cultural dimensions. These contextual parameters included:

No plumbed water in household
Handwash inside the toilet
Low income of < $6 a day (unskilled average)
Soap budget of TZS1750/month
Family toilet with concrete floor

From the literature and expert review, the key design priorities were defined as outlined in Table 7.

Download:

Table 7. Design priorities for a handwashing solution.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283741.t007

Build phase—In-depth qualitative field research

Several existing handwash technologies were taken to the field and tested in households for perceived feasibility, desirability, and viability (see Fig 1). Following initial interviews additional technologies were ‘hacked’ (e.g., from locally available products, such as turning a plastic table stand into a soap holder) and then used as stimuli in households to further explore the range of potential hand cleaning systems.

Download:

Fig 1.

A research participant ranks the products by the most modern (left) to the least (right). (Left to right: Happy Tap, Sanitap, Oxfam bucket, Accordian, Supertowel, Oxfam + nagmagic, Spatap).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283741.g001

Critiques of these products were based on their functionality as aids to handwashing (e.g., whether one or two hands were needed to use it, how much water it used, etc.). At the beginning of the field work the products were presented and assessed individually. The products were ranked through the following categories.

Most likely to show a guest
Most durable
Most modern
Most exciting
Most difficult to use

Following the first six household interviews, conversational ranking exercises were conducted helping participants better express differentiation between products and subsequently better understand preferences. The remainder of this section reports different product critiques and associated themes that emerged from the product ranking.

Happy tap

The clear favourite was the Happy Tap, preferred by all as it was attractive, modern and it had the integrated capacity of storing water in a sealed unit. Some participants also referred to the benefits of using it to teach their children how to wash their hands, citing the motivation afforded by the bright cartoons on the packaging (MG3). The only concern mentioned was that the sprinkler tap did not provide a satisfactory flow of water (MG3).

Sanitap.

The Sanitap bag had mixed perceptions regarding the user experience: MG2 found the unit confusing, yet some children found the graphics on the back clear and easy to follow. The soap attached in a net was seen as a key benefit as it acted as a reminder to use soap to wash hands. Being easy to hang off the ground was seen as another benefit, preventing the unit from getting contaminated. Some participants also cited a perceived lack of durability as the unit was a plastic bag, saying that it would not be kid safe.

Oxfam bucket (& Nagmagic tap).

The Oxfam bucket was simple to understand and generally perceived as a very useful and durable object. However, it did not communicate handwashing clearly. As MG1 said, ‘Honestly, [I] will use it for drinking water’. Other households made similar comments around the bucket being attractive for drinking, laundry, washing dishes or other activities (DSR1, DSS1, MWR2).

Spatap.

The Spatap was one of the least popular solutions as the unit was perceived to have too small a capacity for hand washing (MG3). A sense that the rubber would be easy to break (MG3), despite being made from the most durable material was also mentioned; perceptions of durability were linked to the potential to purchase. A positive comment was that the water was enclosed so that it would not be contaminated by the air in the toilet (DSR4).

Supertowel.

The Supertowel was met with comments such as ‘If it is true, it simplifies things’ (MWS14) and ‘Its fake’ (MWR12) when respondents were prompted for appraisal, indicating a tricky mental model. The fact that the Supertowel’s immediate use was not apparent was an issue. As there was no comparable product, the participants suggested different benefits: MG1 would share it with the entire family whereas the son at MWS14 said he would take it when travelling on long journeys and use it to wipe sweat from his head, not for handwashing. It was seen as desirable for being a modern technology.

General observations from product ranking exercises.

Ease of use for handwashing with soap meant having a reliable system that facilitated the current mental model that handwashing is a two-handed job. This means solutions that are better allow for ‘proper’ hand washing which ‘requires two hands’ (MG4). Presence of soap (i.e., Sanitap mesh, Happy Tap spot) acted as a reminder. Refilling often is not convenient, the Happy Tap’s large storage capacity in this respect was seen as a benefit.

One of the key benefits of the ranking exercises and using existing products for interviews was that it required participants to verbally relay their initial interpretations of the objects presented to them. The aforementioned Supertowel, while an excellent and well-received product was hard to understand. The Sanitap unit had a similar issue: being a novel product made it hard for participants to know or imagine what it could be used for. However, the Sanitap solved this issue by having a clear set of pictographic instructions on the back. The Happy Tap was particularly successful in this regard as it includes a large bay that is clearly used for a bar of soap.

Another issue, common to the Sanitap, Oxfam bucket, and Spatap, were that respondents said that they would use the units for storing drinking water or food, not handwashing:

“[I] can use Sanitap for drinking as long as it doesn’t go in the toilet” (MG1)
Oxfam bucket would be used for storing drinking water (MG1)
Spatap would use for drinking (MG2) and showering (DSR4)

This is linked to a key observation that handwashing is the lowest priority usage of water and soap, meaning that products will simply be used for other activities. Most households had either no soap or dry slivers present in the toilet indicating that there were no soap products for handwashing. The buckets for cleansing were usually old storage buckets that were close to breaking point.

Phase summary.

From the daily thematic analysis sessions, the team highlighted 75 different topics through the lens of handwashing and the products, services and systems that facilitated the behaviour. Themes evolved over time. For instance, as some topics emerged previously, but became clarified, the team would shift focus to areas that were less well understood. Each theme highlighted a potential design priority, a topic to address when generating ideas and solutions. The most pertinent themes and observations are addressed below.

All participants expressed knowledge or understanding that one should wash their hands with soap after defecation. Throughout the household visits, the team enquired as to how families sourced water for various activities (cooking, cleaning, bathing, dishes, laundry, etc.) and the different soaps used for each. Clean water would be kept for drinking, cooking and potentially clothes washing. Water for handwashing was commonly the same water used for flushing and wiping in the toilet. Soap usage had a similar linear downward trend, with fresh bars of soap being reserved for body washing, then clothes and soap slivers sometimes being used for handwashing. While these were often kept in the toilet, it was clear that many were hardly used once they became so small with participants sometimes not knowing the slivers were in the toilet. Liquid soap was generally used for dishwashing or cleaning a floor but was less commonly found in the homes. Powder soap was used for washing clothes.

A sense of contamination was an evident barrier to handwashing with soap and took on many different dimensions throughout all visits. The target of contamination included just about anything in the toilet area (the soap itself, the air, floor, walls, objects brought into the toilet, etc.). Interestingly, in the case of soap, even an object meant to be clean and to clean dirty things it comes in contact with, was perceived to be contaminated. The sense of contamination around sharing soap and the usage of water presented two very clear design challenges in being able to keep products near the toilet while assuring individuals that no cross contamination occurs.