Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 12, Number 1—January 2006
Policy Review

Nonpharmaceutical Interventions for Pandemic Influenza, National and Community Measures

World Health Organization Writing Group

Main Article

Table A1

Controlled studies of the effect of handwashing on transmitting respiratory infections

First author Nature of study Pertinent results Pertinent conclusions
Carabin (39) Randomized, controlled trial in 47 daycare centers (for children <5 years of age) in Quebec, Canada. Randomization was by center after stratification by incident rate of respiratory infection. Intervention was increased handwashing in children and staff by a single staff training session. Outcomes were upper respiratory tract infections and diarrheal disease in children (measured coliform contamination but no viral microbiology, winters of 1996 and 1997). Outcome measures were recorded in intervention and control groups in each center in the autumn of 1996 (before intervention) and 1997 (after intervention). Compliance was measured and showed that the intervention had been carried out. Both groups had a decrease in respiratory infections and diarrheal disease; however, intervention groups experienced greater and significantly reduced rates after intervention than control centers. The reduction in upper respiratory infections was 25%, but little effect on diarrheal illnesses was seen. Environmental contamination (with coliforms) was reduced in both groups during the intervention, which suggests spillover of the intervention. Handwashing reduced the incidence of upper respiratory infections in children <5 years of age.
Dyer (40) 10-week cross-over intervention study among 420 schoolchildren (5–12 years of age) in California compared handwashing and enhanced supervised handwashing and use of a hand sanitizer. Outcome measures were absences due to infectious diseases (no microbiology, early spring 1998). School absences due to infectious diseases during the enhanced handwashing period were 42% lower than in the ordinary period. For absences due to gastrointestinal disease and respiratory infections, the reductions were 29% and 50%, respectively. The effect was consistent in both periods of the trial, and all reductions were significant. Enhancing handwashing and use of hand sanitizers among children in school reduces infection.
Falsey (41) US intervention study in 3 eldercare homes with a historical control period. Intervention was to get staff to wash their hands between clients (residents) (virologic studies, winter 1995/1996). In 3 preintervention years, rates of respiratory infection in the elderly were 14.5, 12.8, and 10.4, respectively, per 100 person-months, and rates declined significantly (to 5.7) in the intervention year. The equivalent rates for staff were 21.0, 13.9, 11.3, and 9.5, respectively, with no significant decline. Virologic testing indicated only 37 influenza isolations among 392 illness episodes during the 4 years. No change in specific viruses could account for the decline in year 4. Staff handwashing seemed to be associated with reduced incidence of respiratory infection in the elderly but not in staff; however, the use of a historical control period can be misleading.
Larson (42) Randomized, double-blind, controlled trial in 238 families in an American city compared the effect of antibacterial and conventional soaps and other products. Outcomes were self-reported symptoms (no microbiology, 48 weeks in an unstated year). Most symptoms were respiratory. No significant differences were seen in runny noses, fever, cough, or sore throat between intervention and control families. No advantage to using antibacterial versus conventional washing materials was found in this industrialized country setting.
Luby (43) Community-cluster, randomized, controlled trial in urban setting (Karachi, Pakistan) compared handwashing promotion in all family members with outcomes of diarrheal disease and lower respiratory tract infections (no microbiology, 12 months, 2002–2003). Children <15 years of age in intervention clusters had lower incidences of cough and breathing difficulty compared with a control (no intervention) group. Children <5 years of age had lower rates of pneumonia, diarrhea, and impetigo in the intervention versus control groups. No advantage of using antibacterial versus ordinary soap was seen. In this study in a developing country, handwashing had a significant effect in protecting children against respiratory infections of unknown cause. Although most infections would be viral, only a small proportion might be expected to be due to influenza virus.
Ponka (44) Open-clustered, unrandomized intervention study in daycare centers in urban setting (Helsinki, Finland) involved 60 centers with 228 controls. The intervention involved training in increased handwashing among children and staff plus other hygiene measures, including cleaning surfaces and toys, toileting hygiene, excluding ill persons, and some instruction of parents. Outcomes were effect on absences due to infections (no microbiology, winter and spring 1999–2000). For children <3 years of age, intervention centers had significantly fewer absences due to all infections and respiratory infections in the intervention period compared with a baseline period. The crude percentage reduction in absences due to upper respiratory infections was 39% and that due to all infections was 32%. No such effect was seen in the control centers, and no effect was seen in children 3–6 years of age in either intervention or control centers. An effect of a combination of hygiene measures was seen but only in young children, and handwashing was only 1 measure.
Roberts (45) Randomized, controlled trial in 23 of 26 daycare centers in an Australian city involved 11 intervention centers and 12 control centers. Compliance (handwashing and wiping children's noses) was measured (no microbiology, 1996). A significantly lower number of episodes of illness was seen in children <2 years of age, with no significant effect in older children or all children. Rates of absence were lower in the intervention centers, but the difference was not significant. Where compliance was measured against illness rates, a 17% reduction in colds was seen in younger (<24 months) children with no effect in older children. The study did not support the hypothesis that infection rates could be reduced by handwashing, although this finding could be due to poor compliance with the intervention.
Ryan (46) Large observational study using a historical control period was undertaken before, during, an after a handwashing intervention among military recruits in the United States. Outcome measures were compliance rates, reported illness, and outpatient and hospitalization rates (limited microbiology, streptococcal cultures; 1996–1998). A 45% reduction in reported outpatient (primary care) consultations was seen for respiratory infections, with no effect on hospitalization. Those complying with the intervention had a significantly lower rate of reported respiratory infections than those not complying (3.2 vs. 4.7 episodes per recruit). Although the intervention had statistically significant effects, this finding must be interpreted cautiously because of the use of a historical control period.
Uhari (47) Randomized, controlled trial in daycare centers in Helsinki, Finland, compared handwashing promotion in staff, children (<5 years of age), siblings (outside the nursery), and parents. Outcomes were all infections and absences (no microbiology, 15 months in 1991 and 1992). A small but significant difference was seen in all infections and symptoms attributable to respiratory infections (rhinitis and cough) in children (lower in the intervention group). Infection rates were also lower in the staff, but the article does not mention respiratory versus other infections. Parents of children in the intervention groups missed less time from work because of less illness among their children, but no difference was seen in parental or sibling illnesses. In this study in a well-resourced country, handwashing had a significant effect on protecting children against respiratory infections of unknown cause. No measurable benefit was seen in protecting families against background-level infectious disease by intervening with their children in nurseries. That finding does not exclude an effect during an outbreak or pandemic.
White (48) Randomized, controlled trial in 4 university residence halls (430 students total) in the United States compared handwashing promotion based around an alcohol-based hand sanitizer (2 halls) versus no intervention. Hand sanitizers were available in both groups but not promoted in the control group (no microbiology, autumn 2001). Somewhat greater handwashing and far greater use of hand sanitizers were seen in intervention than control residences. Intervention groups had 20% less illness overall and lower rates of all respiratory symptoms (including sore throats, stuffy noses, fever, cough). In this small study, handwashing and use of a hand sanitizer seemed to protect against respiratory illnesses. No conclusion could be drawn about the additional value of the sanitizer.

Main Article

  1. World Health Organization. WHO global influenza preparedness plan: the role of WHO and recommendations for national measures before and during pandemics. Annex 1. 2005 [cited 2005 Apr]. Available from
  2. World Health Organization. Non-pharmaceutical interventions: their role in reducing transmission and spread. 2005 [cited 2005 Nov]. Available from
  3. World Health Organization Writing Group. Nonpharmaceutical interventions for pandemic influenza, international measures. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12:817. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. World Health Organization. Influenza A (H5N1): WHO interim infection control guidelines for healthcare facilities. 2004 Mar 10 [cited 2005 Oct]. Available from
  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim recommendations for infection control in health-care facilities caring for patients with known or suspected avian influenza. 2005 [cited 2005 Oct]. Available from
  6. Whitelaw  TH. The practical aspects of quarantine for influenza. Can Med Assoc J. 1919;9:10704.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. New South Wales Department of Public Health. Report on the influenza epidemic in New South Wales in 1919. Section V. Sydney: William Applegate Gullick; 1920. p. 141–2.
  8. Jordan  EO. Epidemic influenza: a survey. Chicago: American Medical Association; 1927.
  9. Jordan  EO. Influenza in three Chicago groups. J Infect Dis. 1919;25:7495. DOIGoogle Scholar
  10. Patterson  KD. The influenza epidemic of 1918–1919 in the Gold Coast. J Afr Hist. 1983;24:485502. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bell  DM. World Health Organization Working Group on prevention of international and community transmission of SARS. Public health interventions and SARS spread, 2003. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:19006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Skowronski  DM, Petric  M, Daly  P, Parker  RA, Bryce  E, Doyle  PW. Coordinated response to SARS, Vancouver, Canada. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12:1558.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. World Health Organization. Expert committee on respiratory virus disease: first report. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1959;58:159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Neuzil  KM, Hohlbein  C, Zhu  Y. Illness among schoolchildren during influenza season: effect on school absenteeism, parental absenteeism from work, and secondary illness in families. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002;156:98691.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Heymann  A, Chodick  G, Reichman  B, Kokia  E, Laufer  J. Influence of school closure on the incidence of viral respiratory diseases among children and on health care utilization. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2004;23:6757. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Valleron  AJ, Flahault  A. Do school holidays have an impact on influenza epidemics, then on mortality? In: Kawaoka Y. Proceedings of the International Conference on Options for the Control of Influenza V. Okinawa, Japan: International Congress Series 1263. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2004.
  17. Armstrong  C, Hopkins  R. An epidemiologic study of the 1920 epidemic of influenza in an isolated rural community. Public Health Rep. 1921;36:1671702. DOIGoogle Scholar
  18. Monto  AS, Davenport  FM, Napier  JA, Francis  T Jr. Modification of an outbreak of influenza in Tecumseh, Michigan by vaccination of schoolchildren. J Infect Dis. 1970;122:1625. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Reichert  TA, Sugaya  N, Fedson  DS, Glezen  WP, Simonsen  L, Tashiro  M. The Japanese experience with vaccinating schoolchildren against influenza. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:88996. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lo  JYC, Tsang  THF, Leung  YH, Yeung  EYH, Wu  T, Lim  WWL. Respiratory infections during SARS outbreak, Hong Kong, 2003. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11:173841. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. McGinnis  JP. The impact of epidemic influenza, Canada, 1918–1919. Hist Pap Can Hist Assoc. 1977;19:12041.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Sattenspiel  L, Herring  DA. Simulating the effect of quarantine on the spread of the 1918–19 flu in central Canada. Bull Math Biol. 2003;65:126. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. McQueen  H. "Spanish 'flu"—1919: political, medical and social aspects. Med J Aust. 1975;1:56570.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. New South Wales Department of Public Health. Report on the influenza epidemic in New South Wales in 1919. Report on the influenza epidemic in New South Wales, for the year 1919, including a report on the influenza epidemic, 1919, Section V. Sydney: William Applegate Gullick; 1920. p. 161–3.
  25. Barry  JM. The great epidemic: the epic story of the deadliest plague in history. New York: Viking Penguin; 2004.
  26. Peltier. L'épidémie d'influenza qui a sévi en Nouvelle Calédonie en 1921. Bulletin de l'Office International d'Hygiène Publique. 1922;14:67685.
  27. Ferguson  NM, Cummings  DA, Cauchemez  S, Fraser  C, Riley  S, Meeyai  A, Strategies for containing an emerging influenza pandemic in Southeast Asia. Nature. 2005;437:20914. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Longini  IM Jr, Nizam  A, Xu  S, Ungchusak  K, Hanshaoworakul  W, Cummings  DA, Containing pandemic influenza at the source. Science. 2005;309:10837. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Luckingham  B. To mask or not to mask: a note on the 1918 Spanish influenza epidemic in Tucson. J Ariz Hist. 1984;25:191204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Wu  J, Xu  F, Zhou  W, Feikin  DR, Lin  CY, He  X, Risk factors for SARS among persons without known contact with SARS patients, Beijing, China. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:2106.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lau  JT, Tsui  H, Lau  M, Yang  X. SARS transmission, risk factors, and prevention in Hong Kong. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:58792.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Respiratory hygiene/cough etiquette in healthcare settings 2003 Dec 17 [cited 2005 Nov 18]. Available from
  33. Falsey  AR, Criddle  MM, Kolassa  JE, McCann  RM, Brower  CA, Hall  WJ. Evaluation of a handwashing intervention to reduce respiratory illness rates in senior day-care centers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20:2002. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Luby  SP, Agboatwalla  M, Feikin  DR, Painter  J, Billhimer  W, Altaf  A, Effect of handwashing on child health: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366:22533. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. World Health Organization, Western Pacific Regional Office. Advice for people living in areas affected by bird flu or avian influenza. 8 November 2004. [cited 2005 Dec] Available from
  36. World Health Organization. International health regulations. 2005 [cited 2005 Sep]. Available from
  37. World Health Organization. Non-pharmaceutical interventions: their role in reducing transmission and spread. 2005 [cited 2005 Nov]. Available from
  38. World Health Organization. WHO global influenza preparedness plan: the role of WHO and recommendations for national measures before and during pandemics. Annex 1. 2005 [cited 2005 Apr]. Available from
  39. Carabin  H, Gyorkos  TW, Soto  JC, Joseph  L, Payment  P, Collet  JP. Effectiveness of a training program in reducing infections in toddlers attending day care centers. Epidemiology. 1999;10:21927. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Dyer  DL, Shinder  A, Shinder  F. Alcohol-free instant hand sanitizer reduces elementary school illness absenteeism. Fam Med. 2000;32:6338.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Falsey  AR, Criddle  MM, Kolassa  JE, McCann  RM, Brower  CA, Hall  WJ. Evaluation of a handwashing intervention to reduce respiratory illness rates in senior day-care centers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20:2002. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Larson  EL, Lin  SX, Gomez-Pichardo  C, Della-Latta  P. Effect of antibacterial home cleaning and handwashing products on infectious disease symptoms: a randomized, double-blind trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:3219.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Luby  SP, Agboatwalla  M, Feikin  DR, Painter  J, Billhimer  W, Altaf  A, Effect of handwashing on child health: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366:22533. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Ponka  A, Poussa  T, Laosmaa  M. The effect of enhanced hygiene practices on absences due to infectious diseases among children in day care centers in Helsinki. Infection. 2004;32:27. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Roberts  L, Smith  W, Jorm  L, Patel  M, Douglas  RM, McGilchrist  C. Effect of infection control measures on the frequency of upper respiratory infection in child care: a randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2000;105:73842. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Ryan  MA, Christian  RS, Wohlrabe  J. Handwashing and respiratory illness among young adults in military training. Am J Prev Med. 2001;21:7983. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Uhari  M, Mottonen  M. An open randomized controlled trial of infection prevention in child day-care centers. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1999;18:6727. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. White  C, Kolble  R, Carlson  R, Lipson  N, Dolan  M, Ali  Y, The effect of hand hygiene on illness rate among students in university residence halls. Am J Infect Control. 2003;31:36470. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar

Main Article

1The writing group was established by request of the WHO Global Influenza Programme. It consisted of the following persons: David Bell, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA (coordinator); Angus Nicoll, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Stockholm, Sweden, and Health Protection Agency, London, United Kingdom (working group chair); Keiji Fukuda, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland; Peter Horby, WHO, Hanoi, Vietnam; and Arnold Monto, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. In addition, the following persons made substantial contributions: Frederick Hayden, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA; Clare Wylks and Lance Sanders, Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia; and Jonathan Van Tam, Health Protection Agency, London, United Kingdom.

Page created: February 16, 2012
Page updated: February 16, 2012
Page reviewed: February 16, 2012
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.