Skip to main content

Advertisement

We're creating a new version of this page. See preview

  • Research note
  • Open Access

Factors associated with latrine utilization among model and non-model families in Laelai Maichew Woreda, Aksum, Tigray, Ethiopia: comparative community based study

  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1Email author,
  • 2,
  • 1 and
  • 3
BMC Research Notes201811:586

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3683-0

  • Received: 25 March 2018
  • Accepted: 4 August 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Objective

The study was conducted on 313 model and 313 non model households to assess latrine utilization and factors affecting among model and non-model families.

Result

About 225 (71.9%) model and 144 (46%) non-model participants declared that they utilize their latrine which gave the overall utilization rate of 369 (58.9%). Households with primary and above education were two times (AOR = 2.03, 95% CI 1.427, 4.638) more likely to utilize latrine as compared with illiterate households. Cleanness of the latrine was also found to be associated with latrine utilization in both model and non-model families. Age, type of latrine, latrine supper structure, cleanness and observable soap near the latrine in model families and age, educational status, occupation, latrine privacy and cleanness in non-model families were identified as a statistical significant factor for latrine utilization.

Keywords

  • Latrine
  • Model household
  • Utilization

Introduction

Lack of sanitation and inadequate hygiene are crucial issues that is associated with disease like diarrhea, cholera, typhoid and parasitic infection [1]. Globally the estimated disease burden associated with poor water, sanitation, and hygiene accounts for 4.0% of all deaths and 5.7% of the total disease burden [2].

About 39% of the world population does not have access to improved sanitation and open defecation is largely a rural phenomenon, most widely practiced in Southern Asian and Sub-Saharan Africa. Sub-saharan countries, including Ethiopia are considered to be the home 81% of open defecation [35]. Furthermore, overall Africa’s low access rates to improved sanitation are partly explained by negligible service coverage in rural areas, where the bulk of the population still resides [5, 6].

Nearly 800 million people still do not have access to improved sources of drinking water protected from outside contamination [7, 8].

Even though Ethiopia has achieved greater progress in reduction of open defecation from 93 to 45% at national level and from 100 to 53% in rural areas, there is poor latrine utilization among individual and families in some communities and 38.1 million people still practice open defecation [9, 10]. To solve this problem, the Ethiopian Ministry of Health began health extension program for rural sanitation as part of its mission to extend health care coverage. As a result latrine coverage has improved significantly to 72% across the country and 87% in Tigray region [10]. But latrine utilization is still very low 31% and 34% in Ethiopia and Tigray, respectively.

The main challenges to utilize latrine consistently was often fill quickly [1113]. Therefore the aim of this study was to assess latrine utilization and factors affecting among health extension model and non-model families in the Woreda.

Main text

Methods and materials

Study setting and design

The study was conducted in Woreda Laelai Maichew which is located in central zone of Tigray region, northern part of Ethiopia which is 1024 km far away from Addis Ababa the capital city of Ethiopia and 250 km from Mekelle, the capital city Tigray region. The Woreda has four health centers, thirteen health posts and sixteen rural kebeles with a total population of 89,052 [1423]. The study uses a comparative cross-sectional study design.

Sample size and sampling techniques

The sample size was determined by double population proportion formula with the assumptions of; P1 = Proportion of latrine utilization among non-model households = 37.4% (14), P2 = 50% since there was study among health extension model r = 1:1 (r is the ratio of the size of sample 1 to sample 2) CI = 95%, margin of error = 5% at α = 1.96 β = power of detect in the study (80%) = 0.84, design effect of 1.5 and 10% non-response rate) [10]. Both model and non model participant households were selected through systematic sampling technique.

Study population

All model and non-model households in Laelai Maichew Woreda, Aksum, Tigray, Ethiopia.

Exclusion Households who were not available during data collection and not voluntary to participate were excluded.

Statistical analysis

Both bivariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was done to identify predictors of latrine utilization among model and non-model household. All the statistical tests were done at 5% level of significance and AOR along with 95% CI was reported. The model was built by stepwise regression technique. The overall model goodness of fit was checked by Hosmer–Lemeshow and the prediction power was checked by receiver-operating characteristic (ROC).

Operational definition

Functional latrine:: 

Latrine that provided services at the time of data collection even if the latrine required maintenance [10].

Model household:: 

Are household head that have graduated and certified by local government organs after they took adequate theoretical and practical training for 4 days (96 h) by health extension workers on the 16 basic health extension packages and acquiring enough information about the packages [10].

None model household:: 

None graduated household by health extension workers and not certified by local governmental body [10].

Result

Socio-demographic characteristics

A total of 626 with 313 models and 313 non-model HHs were participated in the study which gives response rate of 100%. About 158 (50.5%) non-model and 147 (47%) model families were found within age ranges of 35–50 years. Two hundred thirty-one (73.8%) model and 215 (68.7%) non-model families participated in the study were males. About 244 (78.0%) model and 229 (73.2%) non-model participants were married and majority of the household’s head was male with 252 (80.3%) and 225 (71.9%) for model and non-model families, respectively. Majority 302 (96.5%) model and 284 (90.7%) non-model participants were farmers. About 168 (53.7%) of the model and 128 (40.9%) non-model families had an average monthly income of 500–1500 in Ethiopian birr while 108 (34.5%) of the model and 143 (45.7%) non-model families had monthly income ranges of < 500 Ethiopian Birr. Almost all the respondents were 618 (98.7%) were orthodox christians in their religion and Tigrean 625 (99.8%) in their ethnicity.

Latrine utilization

About 225 (71.9%) model and 144 (46%) non-model participants declared that they utilize their latrine which gives the overall utilization rate of 369 (58.9%). However, fresh feces were observed in the latrine of 147 (46.9%) model and 123 (39.3%) non-model families. About 137 (72.5%) of children’s in model families and 78 (60.0%) in the non-model families start to use latrine after the age 7 years (Table 1).
Table 1

Environmental characteristics of model and non-model families in Woreda Laelai Maichew, Tigray, Ethiopia, 2016

Variables

Categories

Model

Non-model

Total (%)

Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)

Maintenance

Required

250 (79.9)

272 (86.9)

522 (83.4)

Not required

63 (20.1)

41 (13.1)

104 (16.6)

Supper structure

No

180 (57.5)

207 (66.1)

387 (61.8)

With wood

64 (20.4)

59 (18.8)

123 (19.6)

Plastered with mud

69 (22.0)

47 (15.0)

116 (18.6)

Material used

Cement

35 (11.1)

12 (3.8)

47 (7.5)

Earth with sand

152 (48.4)

196 (62.4)

348 (55.6)

Wood with planks

105 (33.4)

93 (29.6)

198 (31.6)

Mixed

21 (6.7)

12 (3.8)

33 (5.3)

Latrine location

Inside the compound

304 (96.8)

296 (94.6)

600 (95.8)

Outside the compound

9 (2.9)

17 (5.4)

26 (4.2)

Distance from house (m)

10–15

244 (77.7)

219 (70.0)

463 (74.0)

16–20

52 (16.6)

67 (21.3)

119 (19.0)

21–25

16 (5.1)

25 (8.0)

41 (6.5)

> 25

1 (0.3)

2 (0.6)

3 (0.5)

Privacy

No privacy

151 (48.2)

211 (67.4)

362 (57.8)

Poor privacy

74 (23.6)

63 (20.1)

137 (21.9)

Adequate privacy

88 (28.2)

39 (12.4)

127 (20.3)

Cleanness

No

214 (68.4)

254 (81.2)

468 (74.8)

Yes

99 (31.6)

59 (18.8)

158 (25.2)

Water availability near latrine

No

242 (77.3)

266 (85.0)

508 (81.2)

Yes

71 (22.7)

47 (15.0)

118 (18.8)

Motivational factors for latrine utilization

Health extension

130 (41.5)

133 (42.5)

263 (42.0)

Local leaders

63 (20.1)

66 (21.1)

129 (20.6)

Disease prevention

43 (13.7)

32 (10.2)

75 (12.0)

Neighbor

19 (6.1)

6 (1.9)

25 (4.0)

Volunteer community

16 (5.1)

19 (6.1)

35 (5.6)

Mixed

42 (13.4)

57 (18.2)

99 (15.8)

Supportive supervisory by Woreda health office

No

9 (2.9)

12 (3.8)

21 (3.5)

Yes

304 (97.1)

301 (96.2)

605 (96.5)

Number of visit by Woreda health office

No observation

9 (2.9)

12 (3.8)

21 (3.5)

1 times per month

30 (9.6)

34 (10.9)

64 (10.2)

1–2 times per month

143 (45.5)

129 (41.2)

272 (43.5)

3–4 times per month

131 (41.7)

138 (44.1)

269 (43.0)

Information on control and prevention of diseases

No

6 (1.9)

31 (9.9)

37 (5.9)

Yes

307 (98.1)

282 (89.8)

589 (94.1)

Sources of information

Health extension

144 (46.0)

195 (62.3)

339 (57.1)

From TV

3 (1.0)

8 (2.6)

11 (1.9)

From members families

10 (3.2)

16 (5.3)

26 (4.3)

From radio

35 (11.1)

20 (6.4)

55 (9.3)

Mixed

121 (38.7)

42 (13.4)

163 (27.4)

Factors associated with latrine utilization among model and non model households

Households with primary and above education were two times (AOR = 2.03, 95% CI 1.427, 4.638) more likely to utilize latrine as compared with illiterate households. Moreover, farmers were 64.9% (AOR = 0.351 95% CI 0.150, 0.826) less likely to utilize latrine as compared with households who construct pit latrine without slab/earth was four times (AOR = 4.045, 95% CI 1.673, 9.780) more likely to utilize latrine than those who constructed open pit latrine. At the same time households who constructed latrine with slab were 11 times (AOR = 10.769, 95% CI 3.776, 30.708) more likely utilized than those who constructed open pit latrine (Tables 2 and 3).
Table 2

Logistic regression analysis of factors associated with Latrine utilization among model families in Woreda Laelai Maichew, Tigray, Ethiopia, 2017

Variable

Category

Latrine utilization

COR (95% CI)

AOR (95% CI)

Yes (%)

No (%)

Age

< 35

55 (74.3)

19 (25.7)

2.43 (1.252, 4.721)

2.02 (0.941, 4.329)

36–50

120 (81.6)

27 (18.4)

3.73 (2.079, 6.703)

4.27 (2.192, 8.318)***

> 50

50 (54.3)

42 (45.7)

1.00

1.00

Education

Illiterate

107 (64.1)

60 (35.9)

1.00

 

Primary and above

118 (80.8)

28 (19.2)

2.36 (1.406, 3.972)

2.14 (0.538, 4.293)

Type of latrine

Open pit

9 (31.0)

20 (69.0)

1.00

1.00

Pit without slab

127 (69.4)

56 (30.6)

5.04 (2.160, 11.758)

4.05 (1.673, 9.780)**

Pit with slab

85 (88.5)

11 (11.5)

17.17 (6.28, 46.98)

10.77 (3.78, 30.71)****

Vip

4 (80.0)

1 (20.0)

8.89 (0.866, 91.199)

6.04 (0.521, 70.020)

Maintenance requirement

Need maintenance

166 (66.4)

84 (33.6)

1.00

 

Maintained

59 (93.7)

4 (6.3)

7.46 (2.622, 21.246)

 

Latrine supper structure

No supper structure

119 (66.1)

61 (33.9)

1.00

1.00

Only with wood

42 (65.6)

22 (7.0)

0.98 (0.536, 1.785)

0.86 (0.423, 1.738)

Wood with mud

64 (92.8)

5 (7.2)

6.56 (2.510, 17.154)

4.59 (1.523, 13.846)**

Material used

Mixed

15 (71.4)

6 (28.6)

1.000

 

Earth with sand

99 (65.1)

53 (34.9)

0.75 (0.274, 2.039)

 

Wood with planks

78 (74.3)

27 (25.7)

1.16 (0.407, 3.279)

 

Cement

33 (94.3)

2 (5.7)

6.60 (1.190,36.591)

 

Privacy

No privacy

92 (60.9)

59 (39.1)

1.00

 

Poor privacy

55 (74.3)

19 (25.7)

1.86 (1.003, 3.436)

 

Adequate privacy

78 (88.6)

10 (11.4)

5.00 (2.399, 10.432)

 

Clean latrine

No

131 (61.2)

83 (38.8)

1.00

1.00

Yes

94 (94.9)

5 (5.1)

11.91 (4.65, 30.512)

11.91 (4.65, 30.512)****

Observable soap

No

196 (69.5)

86 (30.5)

1.00

1.00

Yes

29 (93.5)

2 (6.5)

6.36 (1.485, 27.263)

5.58 (1.195, 26.013)*

p value * = 0.05–0.01, ** = 0.01–0.001, *** =  < 0.001

Table 3

Logistic regression analysis of factors associated with latrine utilization among non-model families in Woreda Laelai Maichew, Tigray, Ethiopia, 2017

variables

Category

Latrine utilization

COR (95% CI)

AOR (95% CI)

Yes (%)

No (%)

Age

< 35

45 (51.7)

41 (48.3)

2.820 (1.435, 5.539)

3.112 (1.539, 6.294)**

36–50

80 (50.6)

78 (49.4)

2.699 (1.462, 4.984)

2.776 (1.464, 5.266)**

> 50

19 (27.5)

50 (72.5)

1.00

1.00

Education

Illiterate

77 (41.0)

110 (59.0)

1.00

1.00

Primary and above

67 (46.8)

59 (53.2)

1.637 (1.039, 2.58)

2.03 (1.427, 4.638)

Occupation

Other

20 (69.0)

8 (31.0)

1.00

1.00

Farmer

124 (43.5)

161 (56.5)

0.347 (0.153, 0.788)

0.351 (0.150, 0.826)*

Type of latrine

Open pit

8 (23.5)

25 (76.5)

1.00

 

Pit without slab

99 (45.2)

120 (54.8)

2.681 (1.162, 6.185)

 

Pit with slab

35 (60.3)

23 (39.7)

4.946 (1.910, 12.803)

 

Ventilated latrine

2 (66.7)

1 (33.3)

6.500 (0.519, 81.424)

 

Maintenance requirement

Need maintenance

118 (43.2)

154 (56.8)

1.00

 

Maintained

26 (63.4)

15 (36.6)

2.277 (1.155, 4.490)

 

Privacy

No privacy

89 (42.0)

122 (58.0)

1.00

1.00

Poor privacy

25 (39.7)

38 (60.3)

0.909 (0.512, 1.614)

0.822 (0.448, 1.508)

Adequate privacy

30 (76.9)

9 (23.1)

4.607 (2.084, 10.184)

2.942 (1.251, 6.919)*

Latrine cleanness

No

101 (39.6)

153 (60.4)

1.00

1.00

Yes

43 (72.9)

16 (27.1)

4.098 (2.190, 7.667)

4.098 (2.190, 7.667)***

p value * = 0.05–0.01, ** = 0.01–0.001, *** =  < 0.001

Discussion

The overall latrine utilization in this study was 71.9% in model and 46% non model families. The finding is higher as compared to the regional and national reports [1012] and consistent with [13] compared to non-model families. But lower as compared to the Woreda Laelai Maichew health office report, 80%. This highlighted difference across the region is due to difference in socio economic factors, availability of information, place of residence, reporting system [24, 25].

Latrine utilization among model families was higher than non-model families. Similar study conducted in Souther Nation and Nationality People Republic among model and non-model families also supported our finding [26]. Feces were observed in 147 (46.8%) of the model and 123 (39.3%) of non-model families. Similarly, a study conducted in Shebedino district also revealed that, 99.4% of the households utilize latrine, though; feces were observed by the interviewer around the pit hole in 17.3% of the households [11].

This difference across the region and between model and non-model families were due to the strong supportive supervision of health extension workers, Woreda health office, volunteer community and knowledge of the community related with communicable disease.

Our study also relatively lower as compared to 92% from Hullet Ejjue [27], 92% from Amhara region [11], Denbia 86% [28], as compared to the model families but higher than the study conducted in Awabel 52% [29], Gulomekeda 57.3% [30], Hawzien 37.4% [24], and smaller than non-model families [24]. This difference among model and non-model families are due to the training effect, awareness about latrine utilization and its impact towards prevention of communicable diseases in model families.

The present finding indicated that, even though in every sampled household had their own latrine, they were not utilize the latrine consistently. This situation also supported by findings from a global review demonstrated that owning a latrine does not insure that it is used consistently by household members. 82% in east java, 89% in Kenya [11].

The independent effect of age categories ranges from 36 to 50 years on latrine utilization in model families were four times more likely (AOR = 4.27, 95% CI 2.192, 8.318) compared to the age ranges > 50 years. At the same time age category of 36–50 years were about three times (AOR = 2.736, 95% CI 1.441, 5.193) more likely to utilize the latrine as compared to the age ranges > 50 years as well as age categories < 35 years were three times (AOR = 3.116, 95% CI 1.540, 6.303) more likely utilize the latrine as compared to the age category > 50 years in non-model families. This study is in line with the study conducted in Thailand and Aneded [3133]. This is due to the fact that, those age categories are active adopter from others, acceptance from role model and also they are active in reading different books as well as they are the middle class to analyze advantages of new services.

As indicated by findings from the presented analysis, education was one of the factors statistically associated with latrine utilization in non-model families. Households with primary and above were two times more likely to utilize latrine as compared to the households with illiterate households (AOR = 2.316, 95% CI 1.083, 4.954). This finding is similar with the study conducted in Hulet Ejju Enessie Woreda, East Gojjam Zone, Amhara Region [27, 33, 34]. This is due to the fact that, this group have the ability to adopt from other role models.

Occupation was also related with latrine utilization in non-model families. Farmers were 65.2% times (AOR = 0.348, 95% CI 0.148, 0.817) less likely to utilize latrine as compared to other occupants. These findings were also consistent with the study conducted in rural Tanzania and Kenya [35]. This is due to the fact that, farmers were passed most of their time far away from their resident house.

Concerning environmental factors, households with pit latrine without slab/earth were four times more likely utilize latrine as compared to those households with open pit latrine in model families (AOR = 4.045, 95% CI 1.673, 9.780). Similarly households with pit latrine and with slab in model families was about 11 times more likely to utilize the latrine than those households with open pit latrine [AOR = 10.769, 95% CI 3.776, 30.708]. This is due to the fact that, open pit latrine creates conducive environment for flies and insects. The present study also consistent with the study conducted in Gulomekeda [AOR = 7.6, 95% CI 3.61–17.10] [30]. This is due to the fact that these two areas are similar in geographical setting, characteristics of the community and method of delivering health information.

Super structure of the latrine was also associated with latrine utilization in the community of the study area. Accordingly model households who constructed latrine using wood plastered with mud were about five times (AOR = 4.592, 95% CI 1.523, 13.846) more likely to utilize latrine as compared to those households who constructed latrine without supper structure. Our results also supported by the study conducted in Awabel district [AOR = 3.008, 95% CI 1.364, 6.631] [29]. This is due to the fact that, super structure play great role on privacy during utilization, protection from rainy during summer season, protection from sun during winter.

Relatively little is known about local perception and cultural barriers for using latrines. Experiences showed that crowding, age, gender, privacy, maintenance of standards, cleanliness, cost, distance and a range of socio cultural economic factors can all affect the acceptability and utilization of latrines either positively or negatively. Our results also show that latrine with adequate privacy were three times (AOR = 2.970, 95% CI 1.262, 6.986) more likely to be utilized compared to the latrine with no privacy in non-model families [3239].

Conclusion

Age, type of latrine, latrine supper structure, cleanness and observable soap near the latrine in model families and age, educational status occupation, latrine privacy and cleanness in non-model families were identified as a statistical significant factor for latrine utilization. So that, MOH, regional health bureau and Woreda health office should focus on latrine utilization.

Limitation of the study

This study was conducted through cross-sectional study and may not show the cause and effect relationship. Moreover, there may be over and under report by the interviewee and have observational bias.

Abbreviations

CI: 

confidence interval

AOR: 

adjusted odd ratio

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

GG and GK conceived and designed the study, analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. HZ, HS and HG Data analysis, drafting of the manuscript and advising the whole research paper. DT and MG were involved in the interpretation of the data and contributed to manuscript preparation. GG involve in title selection, data analysis, drafting of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Our deepest gratitude goes to Aksum University, Department of Public Health for their Supportive Supervision. We would like to extend our sincere gratitude to the data collectors, supervisors and the study participants for being involved in the study.

Competing interests

This manuscript maintains no competing financial interest declaration from any person or organization, or non-financial competing interests such as political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, commercial or any other.

Availability of data and materials

The data sets used and analyzed during the current study will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical clearance was obtained from ethical and research committee of Axum University, college of health sciences and referral Hospital. After getting permission from the Woreda health office data was collected from selected households after taking verbal consent. This verbal consent was approved by IRB committee. Similarly in order to keep confidentiality of any information obtained, the data collection procedure was treated anonymous.

Funding

There is no funding for this research. All cost of data collection and analysis were covered by the authors.

Publisher’s Note

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

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
School of Public Health, College of Health Science, Aksum University, Aksum, Ethiopia
(2)
Public Health Department, College of Health Science, Arsi University, Asela, Ethiopia
(3)
School of Nursing, College of Health Science, Aksum University, Aksum, Ethiopia

References

  1. Bartram J, Cairncross S. Hygiene, sanitation, and water: forgotten foundations of health. PLoS Med. 2010;7(11):e1000367.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Pruss-Ustun A. Safer water, better health: costs, benefits and sustainability of interventions to protect and promote health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.Google Scholar
  3. Mara D, Lane J, Scott B, Trouba D. Sanitation and health. PLoS Med. 2010;7(11):e1000363.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Supply WUJW, Programme SM, Organization WH. Progress on drinking water and sanitation: 2014 update. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.Google Scholar
  5. Hutton G, Bartram J. Global costs of attaining the Millennium Development Goal for water supply and sanitation. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86(1):13–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Morella E, Foster V. Climbing the ladder: the state of sanitation in sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank; 2008.Google Scholar
  7. Khanna T, Das M. Why gender matters in the solution towards safe sanitation? Reflections from rural India. Glob Public Health. 2016;11(10):1185–201.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Ghosh A, Cairncross S. The uneven progress of sanitation in India. J Water Sanit Hyg for Dev. 2014;4(1):15–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Cronk R, Slaymaker T, Bartram J. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2015;218:694–703.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hernandez O, Dejene M, Kebede F, editors. Potential motivators behind household toilet adoption: results from a study in Amhara, Ethiopia. Water, sanitation and hygiene: sustainable development and multisectoral approaches. In: Proceedings of the 34th WEDC international conference, United Nations Conference Centre, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Water, Engineering and Development Centre (WEDC) Loughborough University of Technology; 2009. 18–22 May 2009.Google Scholar
  11. O’Connell K. What influences open defecation and latrine ownership in rural households?: findings. 2014.Google Scholar
  12. Abraha MW, Nigatu TH. Modeling trends of health and health related indicators in Ethiopia (1995–2008): a time-series study. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7(1):29.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Beyene A, Hailu T, Faris K, Kloos H. Current state and trends of access to sanitation in Ethiopia and the need to revise indicators to monitor progress in the Post-2015 era. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):451.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Kebede A, Molla B, Gerensea H. Assessment of risky sexual behavior and practice among Aksum University students, Shire Campus, Shire Town, Tigray, Ethiopia, 2017. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11:88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3199-7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerensea H. Trend and pattern of neonatal morbidity and mortality in Tigray Region, Ethiopia. Edorium J Pediatr. 2017;6(1):1–5.Google Scholar
  16. Gerensea H, Abay M, Teklay H, Baraki Z, Tsegay L. The impact of cancer in the Tigray region of Ethiopia: a secondary analysis. J Cancer Sci Ther. 2017;9:389–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Gidey G, Hailu B, Nigus K, Hailu T, Gerensea H. Timing of first focused antenatal care booking and associated factors among pregnant mothers who attend antenatal care in Central Zone, Tigray, Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):608.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerensea H, Kebede A, Baraki Z, Berihu H, Zeru T, Birhane E, Hintsa S, Siyum H, Kahsay G, Gidey G, Teklay G. Consistency of Integrated Management of Newborn and Childhood Illness (IMNCI) in Shire Governmental Health Institution in 2017. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11(1):476.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Gerensea H, Teklay H. Trend of hypertension morbidity and mortality in Tigray Region from 2011 to 2015, Tigray, Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11(1):375.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Mariye T, Tasew H, Teklay G, Gerensea H, Daba W. Magnitude of diabetes self-care practice and associated factors among type two adult diabetic patients following at public Hospitals in central zone, Tigray Region, Ethiopia, 2017. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11(1):380.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Seid A, Gerensea H, Tarko S, Zenebe Y, Mezemir R. Prevalence and determinants of erectile dysfunction among diabetic patients attending in hospitals of central and northwestern zone of Tigray, northern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Endocr Disord. 2017;17(1):16.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Birhane E, Kidanu K, Kassa M, Gerezgiher D, Tsegay L, Weldu B, Kidane G, Gerensea H. Lifespan and associated factors of peripheral intravenous Cannula among infants admitted in public hospitals of Mekelle City, Tigray, Ethiopia, 2016. BMC Nurs. 2017;16(1):33.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Baraki Z, Girmay F, Kidanu K, Gerensea H, Gezehgne D, Teklay H. A cross sectional study on nursing process implementation and associated factors among nurses working in selected hospitals of Central and Northwest zones, Tigray Region, Ethiopia. BMC Nurs. 2017;16(1):54.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Ashebir Y, Rai Sharma H, Alemu K, Kebede G. Latrine use among rural households in northern Ethiopia: a case study in Hawzien district, Tigray. Int J Environ Stud. 2013;70(4):629–36.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Angesom T. Prevalence and associated factors of diarrhea among under-five children in Laelay-maychewdistrict, Tigray region, Ethiopia. AAU; 2015.Google Scholar
  26. Chawicha K, Asnake M, Kassie G, Nigatu T, Belachew M, Zerihun H. The status of hygiene and sanitation practice among rural model families of the Health Extension Program (HEP) in Wolayta and Kembata Tembaro Zones of Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Region of Ethiopia. Ethiop J Health Dev. 2012;26(2):93–100.Google Scholar
  27. Anteneh A, Kumie A. Assessment of the impact of latrine utilization on diarrhoeal diseases in the rural community of Hulet Ejju Enessie Woreda, East Gojjam Zone, Amhara Region. Ethiop J Health Dev. 2010;24(2):111–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Yimam YT, Gelaye KA, Chercos DH. Latrine utilization and associated factors among people living in rural areas of Denbia district, Northwest Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. Pan Afr Med J. 2013;2014:18.Google Scholar
  29. Gedefaw M, Amsalu Y, Tarekegn M, Awoke W. Opportunities, and challenges of latrine utilization among rural communities of Awabel District, Northwest Ethiopia, 2014. Open J Epidemiol. 2015;5(02):98.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Debesay N, Ingale L, Gebresilassie A, Assefa H, Latrine Yemane D. Utilization and associated factors in the rural communities of Gulomekada district, Tigray region, North Ethiopia: a community based cross-sectional study. J Community Med Health Educ. 2013;5(2):8. https://doi.org/10.4172/21610711.100033.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Chanie T, Gedefaw M, Ketema K. Latrine utilization and associated factors in rural community of Aneded district, North West Ethiopia, 2014. J Community Med Health Educ. 2016;6(478):1–12. https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-0711.1000478.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Guterres ICL, Yamarat K, Xenos P. Factors influencing households to use latrines after the open defecation free declaration in Ermera district, Timor-Leste. J Health Res. 2014;28(3):191–8.Google Scholar
  33. Yu W, Wardrop NA, Bain RE, Lin Y, Zhang C, Wright JA. A global perspective on drinking-water and sanitation classification: an evaluation of census content. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(3):e0151645.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Asfaw B, Azage M, Gebregergs GB. Latrine access and utilization among people with limited mobility: a cross sectional study. Archiv Public Health. 2016;74(1):9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Kema K, Semali I, Mkuwa S, Kagonji I, Temu F, Ilako F, et al. Factors affecting the utilisation of improved ventilated latrines among communities in Mtwara Rural District, Tanzania. Pan Afr Med J. 2012;13(1):1–4.Google Scholar
  36. 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.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Bhardwaj A, Surana A, Mithra P, Singh A, Panesar S, Chikkara P. A community based cross sectional study on use of sanitary latrines in a rural setup in Maharashtra. Healthline. 2013;4(1):89–93.Google Scholar
  38. Obeng PA, Keraita B, Oduro-Kwarteng S, Bregnhøj H, Abaidoo RC, Awuah E, et al. Usage and barriers to use of latrines in a Ghanaian peri-urban community. Environ Process. 2015;2(1):261–74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Strunz EC, Addiss DG, Stocks ME, Ogden S, Utzinger J, Freeman MC. Water, sanitation, hygiene, and soil-transmitted helminth infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2014;11(3):e1001620.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2018

Advertisement