ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAA
1
2
Start Here
3
4
This sheet is organized into various tabs, each with a description and conclusions below
5
6
Tab NameDescriptionConclusions
7
Comparing water quality solutionsWe assessed if there was another water filtration device might be more cost effective than Ceramic Filtration (CF). We compared 18 different household water filters based on metrics such as efficacy, cost, risk of breakage, and risk of incorrect use.We did not find any filtration method that was expected to be more cost-effective than CF. The next most promising interventions were solar disinfection devices such as PET bottles. While these had low costs, they had significant drawbacks (require a lot of sunshine, more prone to user error). We ultimately concluded CF devices were the most promising filtration device.
8
Ceramic Filtration - All Studies ReviewedWe reviewed three systematic reviews that pooled RCTs to assess the effects of CF on decreasing episodes of Diarrhea. Two of the three systematic reviews focused on individuals younger than 5 years old, and one focused on individuals of all ages. CF decreased the likelihood of episodes of diarrhea
- by 61% for all ages (based on one systematic review),
- by 50% in children under the age of 5 (based on two systematic reviews, with smaller sample sizes)
9
CF Only vs CF + EducationHere, we try to understand whether providing ceramic filters with little to no education (CF ONLY) vs. providing ceramic filters with a strong educational component (CF + Edu) led to differing reductions in episodes of diarrhea per year.Overall, we found that:
CF Only decreased rates of diarrhea by 55% (RR 0.45, 95% CI (0.4-0.51), n = 3481
CF + Education decreased rates of Diarrhea by 71% (RR 0.29, 95% CI (0.25-0.35), n = 856
10
Chlorination (Kremer et al)We analyzed the RCTs included in Givewells Water Quality Report (Givewell 2022), in order to assess if the interventions they considered only including providing chlorination devices such as In-line Chlorination (ILC) and or Dispensers for Safe Water (DSW), or if the RCTs the used in their analysis also incorporated a strong educational componentOverall, we found that the RCTs that Givewell incorportated into their analysis included a strong and cost/time intensive educational component. This raised concerns that a potentially large percent of the effect in Givewell's ILC and DSW was due to the educational component they provided.
11
Uncertainty about Compliance - Ceramic FiltersIn this spreadsheet, we wanted to see what the average compliance rates in RCTs that used Ceramic Filters.Overall, the compliance rates (how much individuals used the CFs) was 87%
12
Uncertainty about Compliance - ChlorinationIn this spreadsheet, we wanted to see what the average compliance rates in RCTs that used ChlorinationOverall, the compliance rates was 62%
13
Existing CharitiesWe reviewed existing charities in this spaceUpon a quick review, we found 7 charities in this space, serving over 31 countries. These organizations are not solely focus on CF.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100