Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2006
Follow-up of a low cost latrine promotion programme in one district of Amhara, Ethiopia: characteristics of early adopters and non-adopters.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
O'Loughlin Rosalyn, Fentie Gashu, Flannery Brendan, Emerson Paul M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To verify reported construction of 22 385 household latrines in 2004, after community mobilization, as part of a trachoma control programme in one district of Amhara, Ethiopia, and to explore characteristics of early latrine adopters and non-adopters.
METHODS: We used a two-stage cluster sample survey design to randomly select eight sub-districts and 160 households listed as having built a latrine, and visited them to verify presence and use. Household heads were interviewed to determine latrine cost and knowledge, attitude and practice regarding latrines. Non-latrine adopting neighbours were interviewed for comparison. We estimated district latrine ownership and calculated adjusted odds ratios for factors associated with latrine use.
RESULTS: Latrines were present in 87% (95% CI 77-97) of listed households; 90% (81-99) were in use. Among all district residents we estimated ownership as 50.2% (44-56) and use as 45.2% (36-55). Of latrine owners who had built in 2004, 69% (53/77) had spent nothing on their latrine, those who paid spent an average of US$4.0 [standard deviation (SD) US$3.6]; overall the median cost was US$0 and the mean US$0.80 (SD US$1.7). Household heads adopting latrines were 1.9 times (95% CI 1.3-2.8) more likely to have any education and 1.5 times (95% CI 1.1-2.0) more likely to have a larger family than non-adopting neighbours. Cleanliness (48%, 56/116) and health benefits (42%, 49/116) were the most frequently reported advantages of latrines.
CONCLUSION: The latrine promotion programme dramatically increased latrine access and use at very low cost. The method of community mobilization used could be an effective way of reaching millennium development sanitation targets.
METHODS: We used a two-stage cluster sample survey design to randomly select eight sub-districts and 160 households listed as having built a latrine, and visited them to verify presence and use. Household heads were interviewed to determine latrine cost and knowledge, attitude and practice regarding latrines. Non-latrine adopting neighbours were interviewed for comparison. We estimated district latrine ownership and calculated adjusted odds ratios for factors associated with latrine use.
RESULTS: Latrines were present in 87% (95% CI 77-97) of listed households; 90% (81-99) were in use. Among all district residents we estimated ownership as 50.2% (44-56) and use as 45.2% (36-55). Of latrine owners who had built in 2004, 69% (53/77) had spent nothing on their latrine, those who paid spent an average of US$4.0 [standard deviation (SD) US$3.6]; overall the median cost was US$0 and the mean US$0.80 (SD US$1.7). Household heads adopting latrines were 1.9 times (95% CI 1.3-2.8) more likely to have any education and 1.5 times (95% CI 1.1-2.0) more likely to have a larger family than non-adopting neighbours. Cleanliness (48%, 56/116) and health benefits (42%, 49/116) were the most frequently reported advantages of latrines.
CONCLUSION: The latrine promotion programme dramatically increased latrine access and use at very low cost. The method of community mobilization used could be an effective way of reaching millennium development sanitation targets.