Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research Note
  • Open access
  • Published:

Factors associated with rural-urban safe disposal of children stools in Ghana

BMC Research Notes volume 17, Article number: 54 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

The burden of children’s disease in many low-and middle-income countries is associated with poor sanitation, including unsafe disposal of children’s stool. Infants and toddler stools pose a greater public health risk than adults. Studies on stool disposal in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and Ghana have focused on prevalence, patterns, and associated factors. Nevertheless, these studies have not focused on factors that independently influence rural and/or urban child stool disposal. This study, therefore, examines factors associated with safe child stool disposal in rural areas separately from urban areas towards Ghana’s readiness for ending open defaecation by 2030.

Methodology

We examined young children’s faecal disposal drawing on the sixth round of the nationally-representative Ghana Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) conducted in 2017/18. This study was restricted to children under two years, yielding a sub-sample of 3,476. Responses of caregivers or mothers who disposed of children less than two years faecal matter, their characteristics in addition to the child’s age in months were analysed. A binary logistic regression was used to examine the factors associated with the safe disposal of young children’s stools.

Results

In the aggregated data, only 22% of households, regardless of their residence, dispose of their young children less than two years stools safely. From the disaggregated data, the rural analysis shows that 26% of young children’s stools were safely disposed of, compared to 16% in the urban analysis. The urban analysis shows that the child’s age, sex and caregiver’s marital status were significantly associated with safe disposal of stools. On the other hand, child’s age, caregiver listening to radio and household access to improved toilet facilities were significant in the rural analysis.

Conclusion

The safe practice of stool disposal was very low. The results of this study show that urgent and different policies and strategies are needed to address child stool disposal in urban residences compared to rural residences if we are to meet SDG targets of ending open defaecation.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Safe disposal of young children’s stool prevents oral-faecal diseases [1, 2]. Young children, usually less than five years in low-income countries, defaecate in their close environment [1, 2]. This is because of the type of drop-hole and/or toilet facility available to the households [3]. Globally, about 616 million people in 2020 were using unimproved facilities, while 494 million practice open defecation, with nearly half of them living in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) [4]. Open defecation is more prevalent in rural than urban areas [4, 5]. Unsafe disposal of children’s stools poses a greater public health risk due to the presence of higher pathogens which may be associated with cholera, diarrhoea and dysentery and even result in death [1]. The burden of children’s disease in many low-and middle-income countries is associated with poor sanitation, including unsafe disposal of children’s stool [3]. The disparity in access to safe and hygienic waste disposal methods has significant implications for child health [6, 7]. The Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6.2 aims to “achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation by the year 2030”, while SDG 3.9.2 aims to reduce “mortality rate attributed to unsafe sanitation and lack of hygiene services” [8]. However, progress towards these has been uneven across and within countries [9]. In Ghana, a number of strategies and programmes such as the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Sector Development Programme (GWASHSDP) 2021–2030 seeks to improve sanitation and hygiene services to all Ghanaians irrespective of one’s physical location and socio-economic status. The key component is the safe and hygienic management and disposal of human excreta (including children’s stool). Achieving these goals requires the various dimensions of sanitation, including safe stool disposal and elimination of open defecation, are given the needed attention [10,11,12,13].

Excreta disposal is a service, not just an infrastructure; for children two years and below, this service is usually provided by the mother or caregiver [14,15,16,17]. Unsafe or improper disposal of young children’s faeces present a significant source of exposure to health risks. The ‘where’ and the ‘how’ these faeces are disposed off depend on several factors, including the age of the child as well as demographic and socio-economic aspects of the caregiver [18, 19]. This study adopts the socio-ecological framework, recognising that the disposal of a young child’s stool is a complex behaviour influenced by many factors. These encompass personal elements, interpersonal dynamics, household structures, community norms, and policy considerations [20, 21].

Many sanitation interventions in lower-middle-income countries, including Ghana, have focused more on the household solid waste disposal and ending adult open defecation practices in general with not much emphasis on young children’s stool disposal [21,22,23]. This neglect will in the long run not inculcate good practices among these children. However, non-hygienic disposal of children’s stool could be a major source of faecal contamination in the household environment [24,25,26,27,28,29]. For instance, children crawl, play and pick items from the ground into their mouths, exposing them to diseases.

Studies on stool disposal in SSA, including Ghana, have focused on prevalence, patterns, and associated factors [17, 30,31,32,33,34]. Nevertheless, these studies have not focused on factors that independently influence rural and/or urban child stool disposal. The 2021 Ghana Population and Housing Census show that 53.6% and 34.9% of households in rural and urban areas respectively do not have improved toilet facilities [35]. It is imperative to understand the differences between rural and urban settings, child’s characteristics and caregivers’ behaviour and characteristics that might influence unsafe stool disposal. This study examines factors that influence safe childhood stool disposal independently in either rural and urban areas of residence among children under two years in Ghana. The findings of this study would inform policy planners and decision-makers to adopt appropriate strategies in either rural and urban areas aimed at improving hygiene practices and reducing eventually child mortality. Safe disposal of young children’s stool is essential for children’s health, as it prevents oral-faecal diseases, reduces exposure to hazardous microorganisms and the burden of preventable diseases, which can have severe consequences for children’s health. The study findings will benefit households and communities by reducing the risk of waterborne diseases and promote healthier living, leading to a cleaner and more sustainable environment. For instance, identifying the barriers in rural areas could inform targeted interventions to improve sanitation practices, potentially reducing the spread of diseases.

Methods

Study design and description

This study used a nationally representative cross-sectional data from the sixth round of the Ghana Multiple Indicator Survey (MICS) conducted in 2017/18. The MICS used a multi-stage stratified sampling design. The first stage involved selecting primary sampling units or clusters stratified by region and rural-urban status. The selected clusters were listed to obtain the total number of households from which a systematic sample was obtained for the interview. This study is restricted to children under two years; hence, the children’s and women’s files were merged and yielded a sub-sample size of 3,476 [36]. Informed consent was obtained from all participants in the study. Participation in the survey was completely voluntary. Every respondent was made aware of the voluntary nature of the participation as well as the information’s anonymity and confidentiality. Respondents were also made aware of their right to discontinue the interview at any moment and to refuse to answer any or all of the questions [36].

Measurement of variables

The dependent variable for this study is the safe disposal of children under two years faeces, categorised as “safe disposal of stools” and “unsafe disposal of stools”. During the survey, mothers or caregivers of these children were asked, “what was done to dispose of children’s stools?”. The responses included: “child used toilet/latrine”, “put/rinsed into toilet or latrine”, “put/rinsed into drain or ditch”, “buried”, “left in the open”, and “thrown into the garbage (solid waste)”, The outcome variable was grouped into safe and unsafe. Responses such as “child used toilet/latrine”, “put/rinsed into toilet or latrine” and “buried” were classified as “safe disposal of stools” in tandem with the WHO definition and classification of stool disposal [37]. On the other hand, “put/rinsed into drain or ditch”, left in the open”, and “thrown into the garbage (solid waste) were classified as unsafe disposal of stools. A binary variable was created, where “1” represents safe disposal and “0” represents unsafe disposal.

Independent variables

The explanatory variables included in the analysis were identified based on the literature reviewed. These are child characteristics [22, 30, 31, 38,39,40], caregiver characteristics [17, 41,42,43,44,45], and household factors [12, 14, 37, 46,47,48]. The child characteristics include the age of the child in months (0–5 months, 6–11 months, 12–17 months, and 18–23 months) and sex of the child (male and female).. Socio-demographic characteristics of the caregiver/mother were their ages in completed years, highest educational level (No education, primary, JSS/JHS/Middle and Higher), and marital status (in union, not in union), listen to radio (yes and no), watch television (yes and no), and place of residence (rural and urban). In addition, the household factors are household socio-economic status (rich, average and poor), ecological zone (coastal, middle and savanna), main source of drinking water classified as (improved and unimproved), and sanitation categories grouped into (improved and unimproved); based on the WHO categorisation of improved and unimproved water and sanitation sources [37, 46].

Data analysis

The variables were examined using descriptive statistics to help situate the work in context, and Pearson chi-square test was performed to examine the relationship between each independent variable and the outcome variable. A binary logistic regression model was employed to explore the factors that are significantly associated with safe disposal of children’s stools. Three models were run using STATA version 16. The first model used the total data to examine the factors associated with the safe disposal of children’s stools accounting for the net effect of place of residence be it urban or rural and all other explanatory variables. The second and third models examined the urban-rural specific differentials.

Results

Background characteristics of study respondents

Table 1 shows that there is a slightly higher proportion of children less than two years being females (51%) and almost equal distribution across the various age groups in months in the data used in this study. The results further show that 61% of these children are found in households’ resident in rural areas. A higher proportion of caregivers were within 25–34 age group, followed by the 15–19 year group (33.9%). Nearly 46% of caregivers had lower than secondary education, while 8 out of 10 were in union. Over one-third (37.0%) belonged to the average household socio-economic status and resident in coastal or southern Ghana. In addition, 60% of caregivers listened to radio, and equal proportions (64.0%) watched television and had access to improved drinking water respectively. Furthermore, about 51% of caregivers had access to an improved toilet facility.

Table 1 Background Characteristics of Children and Caregivers
Full size table

Table 2 shows test results of the associations between safe stool disposal and each of the independent variables at p < 0.05%. The results show that barely 1 in 4 (22.2%) children less than two years stools were safely disposed of. The age of the child is the only explanatory variable that had a statistically significant association with safe stool disposal in all three data sets (total, urban and rural). Safe stool disposal had a statistically significant association with the sex of the child, education, marital status, and socio-economic status of the caregivers; however, this significant association disappeared in the urban-rural divide. Unlike the child’s age, caregiver’s age had no significant association with safe stool disposal in all the three data sets.

Table 2 Test of Association between Background Characteristics and Safe Stool Disposal
Full size table

Table 3 illustrates the results of the logistic regression models examining factors associated with safe child’s stool disposal in three data sets (combined, urban and rural). Results from Model 1 (combined data) revealed that place of residence, sex and age of child, listening to radio, socio-economic status, and marital status were significantly associated with safe child’s stool disposal. The study sought to determine whether the variables significant in the combined data would be significant at the disaggregated level. Model 2 (urban only) revealed that the sex and age of child, listening to radio, marital status and socio-economic status were significantly associated with safe child stool disposal independent of all other factors, while in Model 3 (rural only), the age of child, listening to radio, caregivers’ age, watching television, marital status, ecological zone and toilet facility were significantly associated with safe child stool disposal.

For model 2 (Urban only), female children’s stools were 28% less likely [aOR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.53–0.98] to be disposed of safely compared to their male counterparts. The odds of safe disposal of children’s stools increase with age. For example, children between 18 and 23 months were 5.8 times more likely [aOR = 5.80; 95% CI = 3.51–9.58] to have their stools disposed of than those aged 0–5 months. Caregivers who listened to the radio were 54% more likely [aOR = 1.54; 95% CI = 1.06–2.21] to dispose of children’s stools safely than those who did not listen to the radio. Mothers and caregivers who were not in union were 45% less likely [aOR = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.35–0.88] to dispose of children’s stools safely than those in union.

Model 3 (Rural only), also shows a positive association between a child’s age and safe stool disposal. Listening to radio and marital status has a similar pattern to that observed in Model 2. Caregivers who watched television were 24% less likely [aOR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.60–0.97] to dispose of children’s stools safely than those who did not watch television. Caregivers aged 25–34 years were 32% more likely [aOR = 1.32; 95% CI = 1.01–1.73] to dispose of their children stools safely than those aged 15–24 years. Stools of children in Savanna ecological zone were less likely [aOR = 0.65; 95% CI = 0.48–0.86] to be disposed of safely compared to children in the Southern zone. Children whose mothers had access to unimproved toilet facilities were 46% were less likely [aOR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.44–0.70] to dispose of stools safely compared to those with improved sources.

Table 3 Factors associated with safe stool disposal in Ghana
Full size table

Discussion

This study used a nationally representative data to examine the factors associated with safe stool disposal in Ghana. The study found that only 22.2% of children under two years had stool safely disposed of. This is higher than what was recorded in India (21%) [19], but lower than Ethiopia (36.9%) [30], Papua New Guinea (47%) [40], Eswatini (58.2%) [44] and Nigeria (59.4%) [45]. The plausible reasons for these differences might be the age cut-offs and study time differences. There are several strategies, such as operation Clean Your Frontage, monthly nationwide clean-up exercise, the Ghana WASH Sector Development Programme (environmental sanitation and WASH in schools) and Community-Led Total Sanitation interventions in selected districts in Ghana, these strategies, according to Tchouchu and Ahenkan, [48], though have yielded much results yet not enough to meet SDG 6.2 and 3.9.2 by 2030.

The independent rural and urban analyses show that the proportion of safe disposal of children’s stool was higher in the rural analysis (26.2%) than the urban (15.9%). Our findings indicate that safe stool disposal was positively associated with a child’s age in rural and urban analysis. These results corroborate previous studies that have reported a positive association between a child’s age and the safe disposal of stools in Ethiopia [30], Bangladesh [22], and Malawi [31]. The probable reason could be that children’s less than six months of stools could be considered less harmful as they are smaller, smell-less and contain fewer visible food residues than children over six months [22 38]. Children aged 18 to 23 months usually can walk, talk and most likely be potty-trained. In addition, the common use of diapers, especially in urban areas, could contribute to why stools are not disposed of safely. Sahiledengle et al., [39] reported that there is a myth that young children’s stools are not particularly harmful in Low Middle-Income Countries, and that could also explain the unsafe disposal of stools at that age. In Ghana, due to the low access to improved toilet facilities [35], societies do not usually frown on open defecation among children. Hence, mothers/caregivers will do their best to dispose of the stool of children above 12 months more safely than those below 12 months.

Consistent with other studies [17, 41], listening to radio enables mothers/caregivers to get important health information about child waste disposal and its impact on children’s health. In addition, it has a great impact on behavioural change. For instance, Curtis et al., [41] reported that behavioural change programmes on hygiene promotion aired on the radio significantly impacted the safe disposal of stools. Irrespective of caregivers’ residents, these behavioural programmes tend to influence their attitude toward hygiene practices such as safe stool disposal.

The caregiver’s age in rural areas was associated with safe disposal of children’s stools. Mothers who were 25–34 years old were more likely to dispose of children’s stool safely than those who were 15–24 years. The findings of this study are consistent with other studies in Gambia [17] and Ethiopia [39]. The probable reason could be that there is mostly social support for childcare for young women in rural areas in Ghana [42]. Hence, as they age, these women may have learnt hygienic practices that could enable them to dispose of children’s stools safely, unlike their counterparts in urban areas.

Children whose mothers had access to unimproved toilet facilities were less likely to dispose of stools safely than those with improved toilet facilities for the total data and rural analysis. The findings of this study are consistent with other studies that have reported the safe disposal of children’s stool among those with improved sanitation [42–43]. Evidence shows that improving sanitation requires an individual to practice safe disposal of children’s stools, though it is insufficient. Caregivers with improved sanitation will adopt measures to practice good hygiene and make their environment clean [43]. In addition, Sara and Graham, [47] explained that ownership of improved sanitation motivates people to adopt safe hygienic practices. Therefore, there is a need to encourage households to have improved sanitation to facilitate safe disposal of stools. In Ghana, evidence shows that rural areas dominate unimproved toilet facilities [35].

This study’s factors associated with safe disposal support the socio-ecological framework. However, the separate rural and urban analysis reveals different factors supporting the framework at different levels. Analyses of the urban data show that child characteristics (sex and age) is the most significant variables, while in the rural analyses, the age of child, listening to the radio and toilet facility were most significant.

Strength and limitation

This study used cross-sectional data and acknowledges that it makes it difficult to establish causal inferences between the independent and dependent variables. The study was delimited to only variables available in the dataset. Other important variables that potentially impact the safe disposal of stools, such as knowledge about child stool disposal, mothers’ hygiene practices, community factors, child care support, and others, were not part of the study variables. Notwithstanding, the study’s findings are very relevant towards implementing policies that will ensure the safe disposal of stools.

Conclusion

Although safe disposal of children’s stool is low in Ghana, it is higher in rural than urban Ghana. This result revealed that different factors were significant in the rural and urban analysis, though few similar factors were significant in both rural and urban analysis. The split analysis shows that different policies are required to address child stool disposal among urban residents differently than rural residents. In urban areas, there is a need to have more targeted behavioural change programmes on sanitations on radio. Women not in a union should be targeted for intervention or assistance in supporting them to dispose of children stool safely. More sanitation programmes on radio and television should be aired in rural areas, and special attention should be given to the northern zone, unmarried women, young caregivers, and those without improved sanitation for an intervention to guide them in disposing of stools safely.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Ghana Statistical Service database at the repository; https://www.statsghana.gov.gh/gssdatadownloadspage.php.

References

  1. Sclar GD, Bauza V, Bisoyi A, Clasen TF, Mosler HJ. Contextual and psychosocial factors influencing caregiver safe disposal of child feces and child latrine training in rural Odisha, India. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(9):e0274069.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Soboksa NE, Gari SR, Hailu AB, Alemu BM. Child defecation, feces disposal practices and associated factors in community-led total sanitation adopted districts in Jimma Zone, Ethiopia. Environ Challenges. 2021;3:100059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wolf J, Johnston RB, Ambelu A, Arnold BF, Bain R, Brauer M, Brown J, Caruso BA, Clasen T, Colford JM, Mills JE. Burden of disease attributable to unsafe drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene in domestic settings: a global analysis for selected adverse health outcomes. The Lancet. 2023;401(10393):2060–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. World Health Organization. Progress on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene 2000–2020: five years into the SDGs. 2021.

  5. Sengupta S, Verma R, Kazmi S. Bottom to the fore: rural sanitation in Sub-saharan Africa. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  6. White HL, Mwapasa T, Mphasa M, Kalonde PK, Feasey N, Oliver DM, Ormsby MJ, Morse T, Chidziwisano K, Quilliam RS. Open defaecation by proxy: tackling the increase of disposable diapers in waste piles in informal settlements. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2023;250:114171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Trevett AF, Carter RC, Tyrrel SF. The importance of domestic water quality management in the context of faecal–oral disease transmission. J Water Health. 2005;3(3):259–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Arora NK, Mishra I. Sustainable development goal 6: global water security. Environ Sustain. 2022;5(3):271–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. World Health Organization. (2019). Environmental health inequalities in Europe: second assessment report: 2019.

  10. Carbonell L, Hofmann P, Srikissoon N, Campos LC, Mbatha S, Lakhanpaul M, Mabeer V, Steenmans I, Parikh P. Localisation of links between sanitation and the Sustainable Development Goals to inform municipal policy in eThekwini Municipality, South Africa. World Dev Sustain. 2023;2:100038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mebrahtom S, Worku A, Gage DJ. The risk of water, sanitation and hygiene on diarrhea-related infant mortality in eastern Ethiopia: a population-based nested case-control. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. WHO/UNICEF. Progress on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene 2000–2020: five years into the SDGs. 2021.https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240030848; 2021.

  13. Belay DG, Asratie MH, Aragaw FM, Tsega NT, Endalew M, Gashaw M. Open defecation practice and its determinants among households in sub-saharan Africa: pooled prevalence and multilevel analysis of 33 sub-saharan Africa countries demographic and health survey. Trop Med Health. 2022;50(1):28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Gupta A, Sengar M, Manar M, Bansal U, Singh SK, SENGAR M, Singh MANARM. SK. Tracking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene practices: Waste Management and Environmental Cleaning in the slums of North India. Cureus. 2023;15(7).

  15. Obeng PA, Awere E, Obeng PA, Oteng-Peprah M, Mwinsuubo AK, Bonoli A, Quaye SA. Usage and Microbial Safety of Shared and Unshared Excreta Disposal Facilities in developing countries. The case of a Ghanaian Rural District; 2023.

  16. Demissie GD, Zerihun MF, Ekubagewargies DT, Yeshaw Y, Jemere T, Misganaw B, Tariku A, Atnafu A. Associated factors of safe child feces disposal in sub-saharan Africa: evidence from recent demographic and health surveys of 34 sub-saharan countries. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(2):e0281451.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Tsegaw M, Mulat B, Shitu K. (2023). Safe stool disposal and associated factors among mothers of children aged under-two years in Gambia: evidence from Gambia Demographic Health Survey 2019/20. PLoS ONE, 18(5), e0284986.

  18. Giri M, Behera MR, Behera D, Mishra B, Jena D. Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Practices and Their Association with Childhood Diarrhoea in Rural households of Mayurbhanj District, Odisha, India. Cureus. 2022;14(10).

  19. Bawankule R, Singh A, Kumar K, Pedgaonkar S. Disposal of children’s stools and its association with childhood diarrhea in India. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dreibelbis R, Winch PJ, Leontsini E, Hulland KR, Ram PK, Unicomb L, Luby SP. The integrated behavioural model for water, sanitation, and hygiene: a systematic review of behavioural models and a framework for designing and evaluating behaviour change interventions in infrastructure-restricted settings. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sclar GD, Routray P, Majorin F, Udaipuria S, Portela G, Koehne WJ III, Nagel CL, Sola S, Caruso BA. Mixed methods process evaluation of a sanitation behavior change intervention in rural Odisha, India. Global Implement Res Appl. 2022;2(1):67–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Islam M, Ercumen A, Ashraf S, Rahman M, Shoab AK, Luby SP, Unicomb L. Unsafe disposal of feces of children < 3 years among households with latrine access in rural Bangladesh: association with household characteristics, fly presence and child diarrhea. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(4):e0195218.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Torres-Slimming PA, Wright C, Carcamo CP, Garcia PJ, Research Team IH, Harper SL. Achieving the sustainable development goals: a mixed methods study of health-related water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) for indigenous Shawi in the Peruvian Amazon. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(13):2429.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Regassa R, Tamiru D, Duguma M, Belachew T. Environmental enteropathy and its association with water sanitation and hygiene in slum areas of Jimma Town Ethiopia. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(6):e0286866.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Capone D, Barker T, Cumming O, Flemister A, Geason R, Kim E, Knee J, Linden Y, Manga M, Meldrum M, Nala R. Persistent ascaris transmission is possible in urban areas even where sanitation coverage is high. Environ Sci Technol. 2022;56(22):15969–80.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Soboksa NE, Olkeba BK, Negassa B, Hareru HE, Gudeta DB. Unsafe fecal disposal practices in children and the nexus with childhood diarrhea in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Water Sanitation Hygiene Dev. 2022;12(11):742–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bauza V, Majorin F, Routray P, Sclar GD, Caruso BA, Clasen T. Child feces management practices and fecal contamination: a cross-sectional study in rural Odisha, India. Sci Total Environ. 2020;709:136169.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang Y, Moe CL, Null C, Raj SJ, Baker KK, Robb KA, Yakubu H, Ampofo JA, Wellington N, Freeman MC, Armah G. Multipathway quantitative assessment of exposure to fecal contamination for young children in low-income urban environments in Accra, Ghana: the SaniPath analytical approach. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017;97(4):1009.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Ngure FM, Humphrey JH, Mbuya MN, Majo F, Mutasa K, Govha M, Mazarura E, Chasekwa B, Prendergast AJ, Curtis V, Boor KJ. Formative research on hygiene behaviors and geophagy among infants and young children and implications of exposure to fecal bacteria. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013;89(4):709.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Sahiledengle B, Teferu Z, Tekalegn Y, Awoke T, Zenbaba D, Bekele K, Tesemma A, Seyoum F, Woldeyohannes D. Geographical variation and factors associated with unsafe child stool disposal in Ethiopia: a spatial and multilevel analysis. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(4):e0250814.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Nkoka O. Correlates of appropriate disposal of children’s stools in Malawi: a multilevel analysis. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Tetteh J, Adomako I, Udofia EA, Yarney E, Quansah H, Yawson AO, Essuman A, Yawson AE. Hygienic disposal of stools and risk of diarrheal episodes among children aged under two years: evidence from the Ghana Demographic Health Survey, 2003–2014. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(4):e0266681.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Seidu AA, Ahinkorah BO, Kissah-Korsah K, Agbaglo E, Dadzie LK, Ameyaw EK, Budu E, Hagan JE Jr. A multilevel analysis of individual and contextual factors associated with the practice of safe disposal of children’s faeces in sub-saharan Africa. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(8):e0254774.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Prüss-Ustün A, Bartram J, Clasen T, Colford JM Jr, Cumming O, Curtis V, Bonjour S, Dangour AD, De France J, Fewtrell L, Freeman MC. Burden of disease from inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene in low‐and middle‐income settings: a retrospective analysis of data from 145 countries. Tropical Med Int Health. 2014;19(8):894–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ghana Statistical Service, Accra. Ghana 2021 Population and Housing Census. General Report Volume 3 M. Water and Sanitation. Ghana: GSS); 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ghana Statistical Service., (2018). Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS2017/18), Survey Findings Report. Accra, Ghana: Ghana Statistical Service (GSS); 2018.

  37. Health Organization. Guidelines on sanitation and health, License. CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO Geneva: Available from: https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/guidelines-on-sanitation-and-health/en/. 2018.

  38. Brown J, Cairncross S, Ensink JH. Water, sanitation, hygiene and enteric infections in children. Arch Dis Child. 2013;98(8):629–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sahiledengle B. Prevalence and associated factors of safe and improved infant and young children stool disposal in Ethiopia: evidence from demographic and health survey. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Seidu AA, Agbaglo E, Ahinkorah BO, Dadzie LK, Bukari I, Ameyaw EK, Yaya S. Individual and contextual factors associated with disposal of children’s stools in Papua New Guinea: evidence from the 2016–2018 demographic and health survey. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:1–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Curtis V, Kanki B, Cousens S, Diallo I, Kpozehouen A, Sangare M, Nikiema M. Evidence of behaviour change following a hygiene promotion programme in Burkina Faso. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79(6):518–27.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Osumanu IK, Amin AM. Sanitation and Hygiene practices in Northern Ghana: an analysis of Household Health risks. Ghana J Dev Stud. 2023;20(1):160–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Phaswana-Mafuya N, Shukla N. Factors that could motivate people to adopt safe hygienic practices in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Afr Health Sci. 2005;5(1):21–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Simelane MS, Chemhaka GB, Maphosa T, Zwane E. Unsafe disposal of faeces and its correlates among children under three years in Eswatini. South Afr J Child Health. 2020;14(4):217–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Aliyu AA, Dahiru T. Factors associated with safe disposal practices of child’s faeces in Nigeria: evidence from 2013 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey. Nigerian Med Journal: J Nigeria Med Association. 2019;60(4):198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. WHO, UNICEF. Core Questions on Drinking-Water and Sanitation for Household Surveys. Geneva: World Health Organisation and UNICEF.; 2006. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/oms_brochure_core_questionsfinal24608.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2023; 2006.

  47. Sara S, Graham J. Ending open defecation in rural Tanzania: which factors facilitate latrine adoption? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(9):9854–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Tchouchu E, Ahenkan A. Towards a successful implementation of environmental sanitation policy in Ghana: an assessment of key impeding factors. Heliyon. 2023;9(3).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ghana Statistical Service for granting us access to the data used in the analysis of this study.

Funding

We did not receive any funding for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Educational Research and Innovation Studies (IERIS), University of Education, Winneba, Ghana

    Martin Wiredu Agyekum

  2. Department of Environmental Health and Sanitation Education, University of Education, Winneba, Ghana

    Florence Esi Nyieku

  3. Faculty of Human and Social Studies, Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Lithuania

    Sylvia Boamah Yeboah

  4. Regional Institute for Population Studies, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana

    Faustina Frempong-Ainguah

  5. Ghana Statistical Service, Accra, Ghana

    Faustina Frempong-Ainguah

Authors
  1. Martin Wiredu Agyekum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Florence Esi Nyieku
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sylvia Boamah Yeboah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Faustina Frempong-Ainguah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MWA, FEN, and FFA conceived and designed the study; MWA and FFA analysed the data. MWA, FEN SYB, and FFA wrote and revised the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Wiredu Agyekum.

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ghana Statistical Service received the ethical approval to conduct this study before the data was collected. Informed consent was obtained from all participants in the study. Participation in the survey was completely voluntary. Every respondent was made aware of the voluntary nature of the participation as well as the information’s anonymity and confidentiality. Respondents were also made aware of their right to discontinue the interview at any moment and to refuse to answer any or all of the questions [36].

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Agyekum, M.W., Nyieku, F.E., Yeboah, S.B. et al. Factors associated with rural-urban safe disposal of children stools in Ghana. BMC Res Notes 17, 54 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-024-06701-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-024-06701-2

Keywords

BMC Research Notes

ISSN: 1756-0500

Contact us