| Literature DB >> 32013175 |
Camille Raynes-Greenow1, Sajia Islam2, Jasmin Khan2, Fariha Tasnim2, Monjura Khatun Nisha1, Jonathan Thornburg3, Sk Masum Billah1,2, And Ashraful Alam1.
Abstract
Our aim was to develop a protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of liquid petroleum gas (LPG) cooking compared to usual cooking on perinatal mortality in pregnant women in rural Bangladesh. We, therefore, aimed to assess the feasibility of the planned trial and the barriers/facilitators of distributing LPG to rural households. We conducted a feasibility study in rural Bangladesh using an iterative design. We included pregnant women, their families, and local LPG stakeholders. We distributed LPG to households for 3 months (3 cylinders) and assessed process issues, acceptability, and cooking/food behaviours. We interviewed LPG stakeholders, and conducted focus groups and in-depth interviews with the users. The initial distribution and uptake of LPG were hampered by process issues, most of these were due to the nonestablished supply chain in the study area. LPG cooking was very acceptable and all users reported a preference for continued use, fuel-sparing was heavily practiced. Safety concerns were an initial issue. LPG stakeholders reported that LPG demand differed by season. This study demonstrated the feasibility of our planned trial and the need for safety messages. These results are relevant beyond our trial, including for programs of LPG fuel promotion.Entities:
Keywords: Bangladesh; Feasibility; LPG cookstoves; household air pollution; perinatal mortality
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32013175 PMCID: PMC7036839 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17030848
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Stove, cylinder, hose, and regulator.
Background characteristics of the study participants.
| Background Characteristics | N = 50 | |
|---|---|---|
| Maternal age * | 19 years or below | 19 (38.8) |
| 20–29 years | 24 (49.0) | |
| 30 years or above | 6 (12.2) | |
| Women’s highest level of education * | None | 2 (4.1) |
| Primary | 10 (20.4) | |
| Secondary | 30 (61.2) | |
| Higher | 7 (14.3) | |
| Women’s employment status * | Employed | 5 (10.2) |
| Unemployed | 44 (89.8) | |
| Husband’s highest level of education * | None | 5 (10.2) |
| Primary | 15 (30.6) | |
| Secondary | 26 (53.1) | |
| Higher | 3 (6.1) | |
| Husband’s occupation * | Unemployed | 1 (2.0) |
| Unskilled labour | 3 (6.1) | |
| Skilled labour | 19 (38.8) | |
| Business | 10 (20.4) | |
| Service | 15 (30.6) | |
| Other | 1 (2.0) | |
| Number of household members * | 2–4 | 19 (42.2) |
| 5–7 | 19 (42.2) | |
| >8 | 7 (15.6) | |
| Number of rooms in household * | 1 | 12 (24.5) |
| 2 | 21 (42.9) | |
| 3 | 10 (20.4) | |
| >4 | 6 (12.2) | |
| Roof material * | Tin | 49 (100.0) |
| Wall material * | Tin | 47 (95.9) |
| Cement | 2 (4.1) | |
| Floor material * | Earth/sand | 35 (70.4) |
| Cement | 14 (28.6) | |
| Primary household cook by | Self | 50 (100.0) |
| Kitchen location | Separate house used as kitchen | 44 (88.0) |
| In a separate room from sleeping | 3 (6.0) | |
| In room used for sleeping and cooking | 0 (0.0) | |
| Outdoors | 3 (6.0) | |
| Primary stove | Traditional clay-made stove | 50 (100.0) |
| Stove used other than cooking | No | 50 (100.0) |
| Fuel used ** | ||
| Biomass (straw, grass, leaves, crop remnants, husks) | 47 (94.0) | |
| Cow dung | 47 (94.0) | |
| Wood | 48 (96.0) | |
| Kerosene | 0 (0.0) | |
| Coal | 0 (0.0) | |
| LPG | 0 (0.0) | |
| Electricity *** | 2 (4.0) | |
| others | 2 (4.0) | |
| Smoking inside house | Yes | 24 (48.0) |
| No | 26 (52.0) | |
* Data missing, ** Multiple responses, *** Rice cooker only.
Figure 2Mean hours of cooking in previous 24 h per visit by stove type.
Figure 3MicroPEM composite acceleration time series that illustrates the participant’s activity level and 89% compliance wearing the device according to the study protocol.