| Literature DB >> 32023912 |
Joseph Kangmennaang1, Elijah Bisung2, Susan J Elliott3.
Abstract
Water security is critical to the health and well-being of people around the world, especially among populations experiencing water stresses and rapid urbanization in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs). Recent research suggests water insecurity is associated with negative mental health outcomes. Despite global improvement in access to safe water across the world, the World Health Organization (WHO) reports that access to safe water in urban areas has not changed significantly or has stagnated in certain countries. In most African cities, entrepreneurial water vendors have stepped up to fill supply gaps in the formal delivery system by selling vended water. As part of a larger research program that aims to assess and analyze public perceptions around vended water, this paper explores the links connecting water insecurity and emotional distress among urban slum dwellers who mostly use vended water in Accra, Ghana. We used a parallel mixed-methods approach. Our quantitative results show that water-insecure households (OR = 2.23, p = 0.01) were more likely to report emotional distresses compared to water-secure households. However, households with improved sanitation (OR = 0.28, p = 0.01) and those willing to participate for improved water and sanitation (OR = 0.28, p = 0.01) were less likely to report emotional distress. Our qualitative results offered support for the quantitative results, as participants not only hold various perceptions regarding the safety and quality of vended water but expressed emotional distresses such as fear of contamination, discomfort, worry over arbitrary change in prices, and anxiety. The implications of the results for policy and practice, specifically to ensuring access to safe water, are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: Accra; Ghana; emotional distress; photo-voice; vended water; water security
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32023912 PMCID: PMC7038156 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17030890
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Map of study area.
Descriptive statistics.
| Independent Variables | Greater Accra |
|---|---|
| Frequency (%) | |
| Emotional distress | |
| None | 353 (72.63) |
| One or more | 133 (27.37) |
| Water security | |
| Secure | 290 (58.12) |
| Insecure | 209 (41.88) |
| Perception of water quality | |
| Wholesome | 261 (52.30) |
| Unwholesome | 238 (47.70) |
| Main source of drinking water | |
| Sachet/bottle | 425 (85.14) |
| Others | 74 (14.83) |
| Distance to collect water (mean) | 16.14 (0–100) |
| Average amount spent daily on water (Ghana Cedis) | 2.80 (0.2–50) |
| Perception of water quality | |
| Unwholesome | 261 (52.30) |
| Wholesome | 238 (47.70) |
| Adequate water for household needs | |
| Inadequate | 146 (29.26) |
| Adequate | 353 (70.74) |
| Sanitation facility | |
| Unimproved | 341 (68.34) |
| Improved | 158 (31.66) |
| Willingness to pay for community water interventions | |
| Unlikely | 352 (70.54) |
| Likely | 147 (29.46) |
| Household food security | |
| Secure | 185 (37.07) |
| Insecure | 314 (62.93) |
| Household wealth level | |
| Poor | 107 (21.44) |
| Middle | 129 (25.85) |
| Rich | 100 (20.04) |
| Richer | 70 (14.03) |
| Richest | 93 (18.64) |
| Education level | |
| None | 71 (14.23) |
| Primary | 106 (21.24) |
| Secondary | 215 (43.09) |
| Tertiary | 107 (21.44) |
| Sexual | |
| Male | 255 (51.10) |
| Female | 244 (48.90) |
| Marital status | |
| Single | 188 (37.68) |
| Separated | 61 (12.22) |
| Married | 250 (50.10) |
| Household size (mean) | 2[1–18] |
| Number of girls under 18 in the household (mean) | 1[0–10] |
| Number of boys in the household (mean) | 1[0–12] |
| Number of adult women in the household (mean) | 2[1–17] |
| Number of adult men in the household (mean) | 2[1–17] |
| Neighborhoods of residence | |
| Agege-Manponse | 60 (12.02) |
| Chorkor | 157 (31.46) |
| Dansoman | 58 (11.62) |
| Korle Gonno | 166 (88.38) |
| Other | 58 (11.62) |
| Observations | 499 |
Figure 2Experiences with water insecurity in the past 30 days in slums in Greater Accra.
Bivariate associations between emotional distress and selected independent variables.
| Independent Variables | OR (95% CI) |
|---|---|
| Water insecurity (ref: secure) | |
| Insecure | 1.90 (1.22–2.95) *** |
| Main source of drinking water (ref: sachet or bottle) | |
| Others | 2.10 (1.24–3.55 *** |
| Distance to collect water | 1.01 (1.000–1.012) * |
| Amount spent | 0.92 (0.82–1.03) |
| Quantity of water (ref: inadequate) | |
| Adequate | 1.62 (1.01–2.61) ** |
| Perception of water quality (ref: wholesome) | |
| Unwholesome | 1.71 (1.06–2.74) ** |
| Access to sanitation (ref: unimproved) | |
| Improved | 0.26 (0.15–0.47) *** |
| Willingness to pay for community water interventions (ref: unlikely) | |
| Likely | 0.27 (0.16–0.47) *** |
| Household food security status (ref: secure) | |
| Insecure | 1.53 (0.98–2.39) * |
| Household wealth level (ref: poor) | |
| Middle | 1.69 (0.94–3.03) * |
| Rich | 1.32 (0.68–2.55) |
| Richer | 1.28 (0.63–2.60) |
| Richest | 0.71 (0.35–1.43) |
| Educational level (ref: none) | |
| Primary | 0.55 (0.28–1.08) * |
| Secondary | 0.27 (0.15–0.51) *** |
| Tertiary | 0.28 (0.14–0.59) *** |
| Sex (ref: male) | |
| Female | 0.92 (0.61–1.39) |
| Marital status (ref: single) | |
| Separated | 0.72 (0.36–1.43) |
| Married | 0.72 (0.45–1.16) |
| Household type (ref: Nuclear) | |
| Extended family | 0.93 (0.57–1.51) |
| Number of Household members | 1.07 (0.96–1.19) |
| Number of girls under 18 in the household | 1.15 (0.99–1.34) * |
| Number of boys under 18 in the household | 1.22 (1.05–1.42) *** |
| Observations | 499 |
Notes: OR = odds ratio; Ref: = Reference Categories; * p ≤ 0.10, ** p ≤ 0.05, and *** p ≤ 0.01; CI = confidence intervals.
Multivariate associations between emotional distress and selected independent variables.
| Independent Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Emotional Distress | Emotional Distress | |
| Water insecurity (ref: secure) | ||
| Insecure | 1.78 (1.04–3.04) ** | 2.24 (1.25–4.01) *** |
| Main source of drinking water (ref: sachet or bottle) | ||
| Other | 1.60 (0.91–2.82) | 1.29 (0.69–2.41) |
| Distance to collect water | 1.01 (1.00–1.01) * | 1.01 (0.99–1.01) * |
| Amount spent | 0.94 (0.84–1.06) | 0.96 (0.87–1.07) |
| Quantity of water (ref: inadequate) | ||
| Adequate | 0.89 (0.51–1.58) | 1.13 (0.61–2.12) |
| Perception of water quality (ref: wholesome) | ||
| Unwholesome | 2.49 (1.48–4.19) *** | 2.23 (1.27–3.93) *** |
| Access to sanitation (ref: unimproved) | ||
| Improved | 0.28 (0.16–0.50) *** | 0.29 (0.15–0.54) *** |
| Willingness to pay for community water interventions (ref: unlikely) | ||
| Likely | 0.28 (0.16–0.51) *** | 0.28 (0.15–0.53) *** |
| Household food security status (ref: secure) | ||
| Insecure | 1.43 (0.85–2.43) | |
| Household wealth level (ref: poor) | ||
| Middle | 3.55 (1.77–7.12) *** | |
| Rich | 2.24 (1.04–4.85) ** | |
| Richer | 2.64 (1.15–6.08) ** | |
| Richest | 2.05 (0.87–4.81) * | |
| Educational level (ref: none) | ||
| Primary | 0.64 (0.31–1.35) | |
| Secondary | 0.33 (0.16–0.67) *** | |
| Tertiary | 0.51 (0.22–1.17) | |
| Sex (ref: male) | ||
| Female | 1.02 (0.630–1.661) | |
| Marital status (ref: single) | ||
| Separated | 0.44 (0.19–0.97) ** | |
| Married | 0.50 (0.28–0.87) ** | |
| Household type (ref: Nuclear) | ||
| Extended family | 0.92 (0.50–1.67) | |
| Household number | 0.94 (0.76–1.17) | |
| Number of boys under 18 | 1.24 (0.95–1.61) | |
| Number of boys under 18 | 0.98 (0.76–1.28) | |
|
| ||
| Neighborhood | 1.00 (0.73–1.36) | 1.00 (0.72–1.38) |
| Constant | 0.32 (0.16–0.66) *** | 0.31 (0.08–1.15) * |
|
| 499 | |
Notes: OR =odds ratio; Ref: = Reference Categories; * p ≤ 0.10, ** p ≤ 0.05, and *** p ≤ 0.01; CI = confidence intervals.
Thematic summary of photos.
| Impacts | # of photographs ( |
|---|---|
| Exposure to contaminants | 10 |
| Disease burden on children | 6 |
| Psychosocial health | 10 |
| Infrastructural challenges | 4 |