Abstract

Although large-scale programs, like India's Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC), have improved latrine coverage in rural settings, evidence suggests that actual use is suboptimal. However, the reliability of methods to assess latrine use is uncertain. We assessed the reliability of reported use, the standard method, by comparing survey-based responses against passive latrine use monitors (PLUMs) through a cross-sectional study among 292 households in 25 villages in rural Odisha, India, which recently received individual household latrines under the TSC. PLUMs were installed for 2 weeks and householders responded to surveys about their latrine use behavior. Reported use was compared with PLUM results using Bland–Altman (BA) plots and concordance statistics. Reported use was higher than corresponding PLUM-recorded events across the range of comparisons. The mean reported “usual” daily events per household (7.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.51, 7.68) was nearly twice that of the PLUM-recorded daily average (3.62, 95% CI = 3.29, 3.94). There was poor agreement between “usual” daily latrine use and the average daily PLUM-recorded events (ρc = 0.331, 95% CI = 0.242, 0.427). Moderate agreement (ρc = 0.598, 95% CI = 0.497, 0.683) was obtained when comparing daily reported use during the previous 48 hours with the average daily PLUM count. Reported latrine use, though already suggesting suboptimal adoption, likely exaggerates the actual level of uptake of latrines constructed under the program. Where reliance on self-reports is used, survey questions should focus on the 48 hours prior to the date of the survey rather than asking about “usual” latrine use behavior.

Highlights

  • Improving sanitation is regarded as a key public health measure to reduce infectious diseases.[1]

  • The mean reported “usual” daily events (7.09, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) = 6.51, 7.68) was nearly twice as high as that of the passive latrine use monitors (PLUMs)-recorded daily average (3.62, 95% CI = 3.29, 3.94)

  • The average PLUM-recorded latrine events were similar for the 14-day observation period (3.62, 95% CI = 3.29, 3.94) and for the last 48 hours (3.59, 95% CI = 3.23, 3.95)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Improving sanitation is regarded as a key public health measure to reduce infectious diseases.[1]. Measuring household and individual latrine use is challenging. Potentially objectionable, and has shown to cause reactivity.[14] Spot-checks and latrine use indicators provide only an indication of household use, not individual use.[10,11,15,16] Some evidence suggests that repeated spot-checks have potential to cause reactivity in longitudinal studies.[17] Sensor-monitored use based on passive latrine use monitors (PLUMs) or similar devices are useful in assessing the reliability of other methods.[14] They have identified evidence, for example, of reactivity in using direct observation, previously thought to be the gold standard in assessing latrine use. Existing sensors are not practical for large-scale latrine use assessment

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call