Dataset Information

Shared Sanitation Versus Individual Household Latrines in Urban Slums: A Cross-Sectional Study in Orissa, India.

ABSTRACT: A large and growing proportion of the global population rely on shared sanitation facilities despite evidence of a potential increased risk of adverse health outcomes compared with individual household latrines (IHLs). We sought to explore differences between households relying on shared sanitation versus IHLs in terms of demographics, sanitation facilities, and fecal exposure. We surveyed 570 households from 30 slums in Orissa, India, to obtain data on demographics, water, sanitation, and hygiene. Latrine spot-checks were conducted to collect data on indicators of use, privacy, and cleanliness. We collected samples of drinking water and hand rinses to assess fecal contamination. Households relying on shared sanitation were poorer and less educated than those accessing IHLs. Individuals in sharing households were more likely to practice open defecation. Shared facilities were less likely to be functional, less clean, and more likely to have feces and flies. No differences in fecal contamination of drinking water or hand-rinse samples were found. Important differences exist among households accessing shared facilities versus IHLs that may partly explain the apparent adverse health outcomes associated with shared sanitation. As these factors may capture differences in risk and promote sanitary improvements, they should be considered in future policy.

SUBMITTER: Heijnen M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4530745 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Shared Sanitation Versus Individual Household Latrines in Urban Slums: A Cross-Sectional Study in Orissa, India.

Heijnen Marieke M Routray Parimita P Torondel Belen B Clasen Thomas T

The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene 20150629 2

A large and growing proportion of the global population rely on shared sanitation facilities despite evidence of a potential increased risk of adverse health outcomes compared with individual household latrines (IHLs). We sought to explore differences between households relying on shared sanitation versus IHLs in terms of demographics, sanitation facilities, and fecal exposure. We surveyed 570 households from 30 slums in Orissa, India, to obtain data on demographics, water, sanitation, and hygie ...[more]

PMID: 26123953

Similar Datasets

Project description:Shared latrines and other shared sanitation facilities are vital for communities that lack private latrines. However, the cleanliness of shared latrines continues to be a problem in sub-Saharan Africa, including slums of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Investigating the barriers to cleaning of shared latrines may inform the future strengthening of comprehensive sanitation programs in slums of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Thus, a community-based unmatched case-control study was conducted among 100 case and 200 control households that were users of shared latrines from September to November 2017 in a slum district in Addis Ababa. Cases were those who had not cleaned their shared latrines and controls were those who had cleaned their shared latrines at least once during the week prior to data collection. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire and an on-the-spot-observational checklist and analyzed using bivariate (crude odds ratio [COD]) and multivariable (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]) unconditional logistic regression model. Variables having a p-value of less than 0.25 from the bivariate logistic regression analysis were retained into multivariable analysis. From the multivariable analysis, variables with p<0.05 were declared as factors significantly associated with barriers to cleaning of shared latrines. We found that about half 99 (49.5%) of shared latrines used by cases and almost one-third 32 (32.0%) of the shared latrines used by controls had visible cracks and spaces in the floor and slabs. The barriers to cleaning of shared latrines were found to be monthly household income of less than $55.60 USD (AOR = 1.80; 95%CI: 1.2-3.10), users feeling a lack of privacy during latrine use (AOR = 2.95; 95% CI: 1.60-5.43), no locking latch on the latrine door (AOR = 4.60; 95% CI: 2.43-8.79), inadequate ventilation of latrine (AOR: 4.88; 95% CI: 2.44-9.63), lack of regular monitoring of latrine by health extension workers (AOR = 2.86; 95%CI: 1.32-6.21) and a lack of enough water at home for cleaning the latrine (AOR = 4.91; 95% CI: 1.07-9.48). This study found several barriers to cleaning of shared latrines in slums of Addis Ababa. We recommend that stakeholders promote cleaning of shared latrines by designing programs to improve latrine privacy by adding or modifying the superstructure and including a door with locking latch, to make adjustments to the structure for better ventilation, to ensure regular monitoring of latrines by health extension workers and to make enough water consistently available for regular latrine cleaning.

Project description:BackgroundWhile the sanitation ladder is useful in analysing progressive improvements in sanitation, studies in Uganda have not indicated the sanitation barriers faced by the urban poor. There are various challenges in shared latrine use, cleaning and maintenance. Results from Kampala city indicate that, failure to clean and maintain sanitation infrastructure can lead to a reversal of the potential benefits that come with various sanitation facilities.MethodsA cross sectional qualitative study was conducted between March and May 2013. Data were collected through 18 focus group discussions (FGDs) held separately; one with women, men and youth respectively. We also used pictorial methods; in addition, 16 key informant interviews were conducted. Data were analysed using content thematic approach. Relevant quotations per thematic area were identified and have been used in the presentation of the results.ResultsWhether a shared sanitation facility was improved or not, it was abandoned once it was not properly used and cleaned. The problem of using shared latrines began with the lack of proper latrine training when people do not know how to squat on the latrine hole. The constrained access and security concerns, obscure paths that were filthy especially at night, lack of light in the latrine cubicle, raised latrines sometimes up to two metres above the ground, coupled with lack of cleaning and emptying the shared facilities only made a bad situation worse. In this way, open defecation gradually substituted use of the available sanitation facilities. This paper argues that, filthy latrines have the same net effect as crude open defection.ConclusionWhereas most sanitation campaigns are geared towards provision of improved sanitation infrastructure, these findings show that mere provision of infrastructure (improved or not) without adequate emphasis on proper use, cleaning and maintenance triggers an involuntary descent off the sanitation ladder. Understanding this reversal movement is critical in sustainable sanitation services and should be a concern for all actors.

Project description:UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND:Infectious diseases associated with poor sanitation such as diarrhoea, intestinal worms, trachoma and lymphatic filariasis continue to cause a large disease burden in low income settings and contribute substantially to child mortality and morbidity. Obtaining health impact data for rural sanitation campaigns poses a number of methodological challenges. Here we describe the design of a village-level cluster-randomised trial in the state of Orissa, India to evaluate the impact of an ongoing rural sanitation campaign conducted under the umbrella of India's Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC).We randomised 50 villages to the intervention and 50 villages to control. In the intervention villages the implementing non-governmental organisations conducted community mobilisation and latrine construction with subsidies given to poor families. Control villages receive no intervention. Outcome measures include (1) diarrhoea in children under 5 and in all ages, (2) soil-transmitted helminth infections, (3) anthropometric measures, (4) water quality, (5) number of insect vectors (flies, mosquitoes), (6) exposure to faecal pathogens in the environment. In addition we are conducting process documentation (latrine construction and use, intervention reach), cost and cost-effectiveness analyses, spatial analyses and qualitative research on gender and water use for sanitation. RESULTS:Randomisation resulted in an acceptable balance between trial arms. The sample size requirements appear to be met for the main study outcomes. Delays in intervention roll-out caused logistical problems especially for the planning of health outcome follow-up surveys. Latrine coverage at the end of the construction period (55%) remained below the target of 70%, a result that may, however, be in line with many other TSC intervention areas in India. CONCLUSION:We discuss a number of methodological problems encountered thus far in this study that may be typical for sanitation trials. Nevertheless, it is expected that the trial procedures will allow measuring the effectiveness of a typical rural sanitation campaign, with sufficient accuracy and validity.

Dataset Information

Shared Sanitation Versus Individual Household Latrines in Urban Slums: A Cross-Sectional Study in Orissa, India.

Publications

Shared Sanitation Versus Individual Household Latrines in Urban Slums: A Cross-Sectional Study in Orissa, India.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets