Duy Anh Le1, Nikita Makarchev2. 1. Centre of Development Studies, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB3 9DP, UK. 2. Centre of Development Studies, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB3 9DP, UK. Electronic address: nm596@cam.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Rural Vietnam has been subject to continuous hygienic latrine interventions since the mid-1990s. However, most have concentrated on improving coverage rather than use. It is thus important to examine rural hygienic latrine use rates and the predictors impacting them. Accordingly, this can inform subsequent sanitation policy and enrich pertinent, rural health scholarship. METHODS: For this study, 792 adult household heads were surveyed in Giong Trom district, Ben Tre, Mekong Delta region, Vietnam. A logistic regression analysis was performed on household heads owning a hygienic and unhygienic latrine simultaneously (N = 140). Included use predictors were individual-contextual and RANAS. This permit assessments of behavioural or normative predictors that, in many instances, are absent from comparable studies. Predictors' statistical significance was set at p < 0.03. FINDINGS: Unsatisfactory hygienic latrine use in Ben Tre, among hygienic latrine owners, exceeds 20%. Many owners (26.8%) choose to retain their unhygienic latrine when acquiring a hygienic one, resulting in a 46.4% unhygienic latrine use rate within this sub-group. Meanwhile, the only hygienic latrine use predictors with statistical significance are neighbours' behaviour, user preference and health-benefit beliefs. CONCLUSION: The Ben Tre case underscores that hygienic latrine ownership or access does not ensure comprehensive use. This even applies to latrines that are clean, working and adequate privacy-providing. Sanitation interventions thus ought to consider a targeted, community-coverage approach with expansive health messaging and emphasis on behavioural change. Demographic or socioeconomic-particular targeting, however, is not always necessary: no individual-contextual predictors proved statistically significant.
PURPOSE: Rural Vietnam has been subject to continuous hygienic latrine interventions since the mid-1990s. However, most have concentrated on improving coverage rather than use. It is thus important to examine rural hygienic latrine use rates and the predictors impacting them. Accordingly, this can inform subsequent sanitation policy and enrich pertinent, rural health scholarship. METHODS: For this study, 792 adult household heads were surveyed in Giong Trom district, Ben Tre, Mekong Delta region, Vietnam. A logistic regression analysis was performed on household heads owning a hygienic and unhygienic latrine simultaneously (N = 140). Included use predictors were individual-contextual and RANAS. This permit assessments of behavioural or normative predictors that, in many instances, are absent from comparable studies. Predictors' statistical significance was set at p < 0.03. FINDINGS: Unsatisfactory hygienic latrine use in Ben Tre, among hygienic latrine owners, exceeds 20%. Many owners (26.8%) choose to retain their unhygienic latrine when acquiring a hygienic one, resulting in a 46.4% unhygienic latrine use rate within this sub-group. Meanwhile, the only hygienic latrine use predictors with statistical significance are neighbours' behaviour, user preference and health-benefit beliefs. CONCLUSION: The Ben Tre case underscores that hygienic latrine ownership or access does not ensure comprehensive use. This even applies to latrines that are clean, working and adequate privacy-providing. Sanitation interventions thus ought to consider a targeted, community-coverage approach with expansive health messaging and emphasis on behavioural change. Demographic or socioeconomic-particular targeting, however, is not always necessary: no individual-contextual predictors proved statistically significant.