Neighbour-shared versus communal latrines in urban slums: a cross-sectional study in Orissa, India exploring household demographics, accessibility, privacy, use and cleanliness.

Clicks: 391
ID: 80807
2015
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #9 of 73 articles by views in transactions of the royal society of tropical medicine and hygiene

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
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.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.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.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.
Reference Key
heijnen2015neighboursharedtransactions Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Heijnen, Marieke;Routray, Parimita;Torondel, Belen;Clasen, Thomas;
Journal transactions of the royal society of tropical medicine and hygiene
Year 2015
DOI
10.1093/trstmh/trv082
URL
Keywords
public health india environmental health vulnerable populations toilet facilities shared sanitation

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.