Marieke Heijnen1, Parimita Routray2, Belen Torondel2, Thomas Clasen3. 1. Department of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK Marieke.Heijnen@gmail.com. 2. Department of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK. 3. Department of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A growing proportion of the global population rely on shared sanitation facilities, despite their association with adverse health outcomes. We sought to explore differences between neighbour-shared and communal latrines in terms household demographics, accessibility, facilities and use. METHODS: We conducted surveys among 295 households relying on shared sanitation in 30 slums in Orissa, India, 60.3% (178) of which relied on neighbour-shared latrines while the balance relied on communal latrines. We collected household demographic data, conducted latrine spot-checks and collected data on indicators of use, accessibility, privacy and cleanliness. RESULTS: Compared to neighbour-shared facilities, households relying on communal facilities were poorer, larger, less educated, less likely to have access to piped water and more likely to have a member practicing open defecation. Communal latrines were also less accessible, less likely to have water or a hand washing station on site and cleaned less frequently; they were more likely to have visible faeces and flies present. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant differences between neighbour-shared and communal facilities in terms of user demographics, access, facilities and cleanliness that could potentially explain differences in health. These findings highlight the need for a shared sanitation policy that focuses not just on the number of users, but also on maintenance, accessibility, cleanliness and provision of water and hand washing facilities.
INTRODUCTION: A growing proportion of the global population rely on shared sanitation facilities, despite their association with adverse health outcomes. We sought to explore differences between neighbour-shared and communal latrines in terms household demographics, accessibility, facilities and use. METHODS: We conducted surveys among 295 households relying on shared sanitation in 30 slums in Orissa, India, 60.3% (178) of which relied on neighbour-shared latrines while the balance relied on communal latrines. We collected household demographic data, conducted latrine spot-checks and collected data on indicators of use, accessibility, privacy and cleanliness. RESULTS: Compared to neighbour-shared facilities, households relying on communal facilities were poorer, larger, less educated, less likely to have access to piped water and more likely to have a member practicing open defecation. Communal latrines were also less accessible, less likely to have water or a hand washing station on site and cleaned less frequently; they were more likely to have visible faeces and flies present. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant differences between neighbour-shared and communal facilities in terms of user demographics, access, facilities and cleanliness that could potentially explain differences in health. These findings highlight the need for a shared sanitation policy that focuses not just on the number of users, but also on maintenance, accessibility, cleanliness and provision of water and hand washing facilities.
Authors: Matthew R Just; Stephen W Carden; Sheng Li; Kelly K Baker; Manoj Gambhir; Isaac Chun-Hai Fung Journal: Pathog Glob Health Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Joshua V Garn; Gloria D Sclar; Matthew C Freeman; Gauthami Penakalapati; Kelly T Alexander; Patrick Brooks; Eva A Rehfuess; Sophie Boisson; Kate O Medlicott; Thomas F Clasen Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 5.840
Authors: Farzana Yeasmin; Stephen P Luby; Ronald E Saxton; Fosiul A Nizame; Mahbub-Ul Alam; Notan Chandra Dutta; Abdullah-Al Masud; Dalia Yeasmin; Anita Layden; Habibur Rahman; Rachel Abbott; Leanne Unicomb; Peter J Winch Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-08-29 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Rebecca Lyn Ritter; Dorothy Peprah; Clair Null; Christine L Moe; George Armah; Joseph Ampofo; Nii Wellington; Habib Yakubu; Katharine Robb; Amy E Kirby; Yuke Wang; Katherine Roguski; Heather Reese; Chantal A Agbemabiese; Lady Asantewa B Adomako; Matthew C Freeman; Kelly K Baker Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Farhana Sultana; Leanne E Unicomb; Fosiul A Nizame; Notan Chandra Dutta; Pavani K Ram; Stephen P Luby; Peter J Winch Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 2.345