Skip to main content

Advertisement

  • Research note
  • Open Access

Community-Led Total Sanitation and the rate of latrine ownership

  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 1Email author
BMC Research Notes201912:14

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4066-x

  • Received: 4 October 2018
  • Accepted: 9 January 2019
  • Published:

Abstract

Objective

Lack of sanitation affecting billions of people worldwide is a serious public health problem of Ethiopia. So, we aimed at examining the influence of community interventions on households’ latrine ownership status in Northwest Ethiopia.

Results

The proportion of households owning latrines were 47% (95% CI 42.5, 52.0). Community Lead Total Sanitation practice in the kebele [AOR = 1.78, 95% CI (1.57, 2.03)], health facilities available in the village [AOR = 2.37, 95% CI (2.14, 2.64)], and increased educational attainment of the head of the household were statistically significantly associated with households’ latrine ownership. So, we recommend expansion of community interventions for those who are not yet reached.

Keywords

  • Latrine ownership
  • Community-Lead Total Sanitation
  • Ethiopia

Introduction

Lack of sanitation is a serious health risk, affecting billions of people worldwide, particularly the poor and the disadvantaged. Globally, 2.4 billion people lack improved sanitation facilities, and almost one billion practice open defecation, resulting in 280,000 diarrheal deaths yearly. The magnitude of the problem varies even across developing regions of the world; sub-Saharan Africa, where 50% of the inhabitants practice open defecation, is the most heavily affected region. The situation seems less prevalent in Ethiopia in which 29% of the population were reported to practice open defecation [1].

Open defecation is highly associated with the transmission of diarrheal or gastrointestinal diseases and parasitic infections like hookworm and ascariasis [2].

In Ethiopia, about 60% of the disease burdens are due to poor hygiene and sanitation [3]; people with private and clean latrines are less prone to be affected by poor sanitation related communicable diseases [48]. However, the practice is affected by different levels of factors which include, socio-economic, knowledge and attitude, and environmental characteristics in addition [911].

The government of Ethiopia has been aggressively working through the Health Extension Program to make every household in the country have a latrine. As a result, according to the Ethiopian Demographic and Health Surveys (EDHS) report of 2011 and 2016, the proportion of households with latrine facilities nationally increased from 55% in 2011 to 61% in 2016 [12, 13]. However, the progress was significantly lower than the stipulated national target of 100% coverage [14]. On the other hand, evidences from small studies conducted in the different places revealed that latrine availability was highly variable across the Ethiopia, as high as 93.5% in Debre Tabor town [15] and as low as 58.4% in the suburbs of Bahir Dar town [11], for instance. This suggests that more research needs to be conducted in specific places with different contexts in the country to provide concerned bodies with evidences necessary for increasing latrine coverage as no study has been conducted to assess the situation in the study area. Therefore, we aimed at evaluating the coverage of latrine and factors contributing to it in Northwest Ethiopia.

Main text

Methods

Study design and setting

We conducted a community based cross sectional study among households in Dabat district from March to April 2017. The district is located in northwest Ethiopia. It is 821 km northwest of Addis Ababa and is serving as a surveillance site of the University of Gondar since. The district comprises 30 kebeles (the smallest administrative units in the hierarchy of government administration in Ethiopia) with 6 health centers and 35 health posts. It has a total of 41,697 households and 179,295 inhabitants, according to the population projection for 2017.

Sampling and size determination

We employed a single population proportion formula for calculating the sample size. We considered a prevalence of 93.5% from a previous study [15], confidence level of 95% and a margin of error 3%. The sample size calculated was 260. As the sampling process was multi stage, we assumed a design effect, and we took a design effect of 1.5. The final sample size obtained after adding 10% non-response was 429.

Data collection

We used a pretested structured questionnaire for the data collection. Observation was used to collect data on latrine characteristics and interview for data on variables, which included socio demographic, health facility accessibility and utilization related. The interviewees were heads of households. The questionnaire was originally prepared in English and translated to Amharic (the local language), and responses were then translated to the English language. The thirteen data collectors and two supervisors of the surveillance site collected the data. The data collectors trained for 2 days were deployed with the codes of the households selected randomly from the surveillance site household Registration Book.

Data quality assurance

To enhance the quality of the data, we pretested the questionnaire, and accordingly, modifications were made on the questions. We gave training to data collectors and supervisors on the nature of questions, approaching and interviewing participants, and inspecting latrines. The clarity, consistency and accuracy of responses were checked both on the field and in the office. Data were entered by two researchers and cross checked to correct entry errors.

Data processing and analysis

We entered the data into epi info version 7 and exported to Stata version 13 statistical package analysis. Descriptive analysis was carried out first to see the distribution population with regard to socio-demographic, geographic, health facility and latrine related characteristics. Means, percentages, graphs, and tables were used accordingly to describe the data. We fitted binary logistic regression model to identify factors associated with latrine ownership. The crude and adjusted odds ratios with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were computed. Predictors with ≤ 0.05 p-value in the multivariable regression were considered as statistically significant.

Ethical consideration

Before starting the study, we obtained ethical clearance from the Institutional Ethics Review Board of the University of Gondar. Permission letters were secured from the different levels of government administration offices. Informed oral consent was obtained from the participants after giving them due information relating to the purpose, benefits, and risks of the study, and the confidentiality of data that personal identifiers of participants were not included in the questionnaire. The respondents were also told that participation in the study was completely voluntary.

Results

Socio demographic characteristics

All (429) of the study households completed the study. Out of the total households, over two-third, 281 (65.5%), were from rural kebeles, and over half, 265 (61.8%), were at least 10 km from the center of the district. Most, 343 (79.9%), of the heads of households were married, and more than half, 237 (55.2%), were not able to read and write. Over half, 238 (55.5%), of the households had at least 5 members, and below one-fourth, 70 (16.3%), had a member with either some level of official authority or membership in the health development army (HAD). Over three-fourths, 340 (79.3%), of the households had school children in the houses. Over half, 239 (55.7%), of the households lived in the highland and the rest in the lowland or semi highland areas of the district. Over half, 232 (54.1%), of the households were in villages where health institutions (health centers or health posts) were available. About two-third, 282 (65.7%), said that there was CLTS carried out in the kebele (Table 1).
Table 1

Socio-demographic characteristics of household in Dabat District, Northwest Ethiopia, From March to April, 2017

Variables

Frequency (%)

Residence

 Urban

148 (34.5)

 Rural

281 (65.5)

Marital status

 Married

343 (79.9)

 Unmarried

6 (1.4)

 Widowed

44 (10.3)

 Divorced

36 (8.4)

Educational status

 Unable to write and read

237 (55.3)

 Able to write and read

96 (22.4)

 Primary level

40 (9.3)

 Secondary level

39 (9.1)

 College and above

17 (3.9)

Household size

 ≤ 5

238 (55.5)

 > 5

191 (44.5)

Kebele distance from the town

 ≥ 10 km from town

164 (38.2)

 < 10 km from town

265 (61.8)

Schooling children in the household

 Yes

340 (79.3)

 No

89 (20.7)

Official authority or HDA in the kebele

 Yes

70 (16.3)

 No

359 (83.7)

Health institution in the kebele

 Yes

232 (54.1)

 No

197 (45.9)

CLTS conducted in the kebele

 Yes

282 (65.7)

 No

147 (34.3)

Climate

 Lowland

126 (29.4)

 Highland

239 (55.7)

 Semi highland

64 (14.9)

Latrine ownership and related characteristics

This study revealed that 47% (95% CI 42.5, 52.0) of the households in the study area owned latrine. Of all latrines, over two-thirds, 139 (68.5%), had adequate ceilings and walls, and were graded as good. Below one-fourth, 48 (23.7%), of the latrines had no covers or walls, but confirmed as being used by household though they were classified as bad latrines. The least number, 16 (7.8%), which had no ceilings were covered with plastic and considered as fair latrines. The mean duration of latrines in the district was 48 months with a standard deviation of ± 41 months. The mean distance of latrines from houses was 9.4 m with a standard deviation of ± 6.7 m. The main reason for 94 (46.3%) of the households for constructing latrines was the health education given by the health extension workers (HEWs). Of the respondents who did not have latrines, more than half, 126 (55.7%), said the destruction of their previous latrines was the reason for their not having them at the moment (Table 2).
Table 2

Ownership of latrine and related characteristics in Dabat District, Northwest Ethiopia, from Match to April, 2017

Variables

Frequency (%)

Had private latrine

 Yes

203 (47.0)

 No

206 (53.0)

Latrine feature

 Hole without cover

48 (23.6)

 Latrine without enough ceiling and wall

14 (6.9)

 Latrine with enough ceiling and wall

139 (68.5)

 Latrine covered with plastic

2 (1.0)

Distance of the latrine from home (m)

 < 10

152 (74.9)

 ≥ 10

51 (25.1)

Duration of latrine (years)

 ≤ 7

166 (81.8)

 > 7

37 (18.2)

Reason for constructing latrine

 Afraid of penalty

9 (4.4)

 Latrine construction campaign

35 (17.3)

 Due to HEW supervision

94 (46.3)

 Self-motivation

63 (31.1)

 Others

2 (0.9)

Reason for not having latrine

 Lack of land

42 (18.6)

 Lack of money

20 (8.9)

 Lack of awareness

21 (9.3)

 Destroyed latrine

126 (55.7)

 Other reasons

17 (7.5)

Factors associated with latrine ownership

Independent variables like marital and educational statuses, and having official position in the kebele of household heads, income, family size, presence of schooling children, household supervision by health extension workers, CLTS conducted in the kebele, presence of health institution in the kebele, kebele distance from the town and climatic condition were considered in the bi-variable logistic regression analysis. In the final multivariable model however CLTS conducted in the kebele, educational status, presence of health institution in the kebele and climatic conditions were statistically significantly associated with household’s latrine availability. The study revealed that as the level of educational status of the heads of the households increased there appeared increases in the availability of latrines: primary education (AOR = 2.20, 95% CI 11.7, 2.8), secondary education (AOR = 8.90, 95% CI 6.7, 9.7), and college and above (AOR = 10.21, 95% CI 4.9, 21.3). Households in highland climatic areas had 4.29 times higher prevalence of latrines than those who were in lowland climates (AOR = 4.29, 95% CI 3.67, 5.02). The study identified that households that were in kebeles where CLTS was conducted were 1.78 times more likely to have latrines compared to their counter parts, (AOR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.6, 2.0). Households that lived in villages in which health institutions (at least health posts—the lowest level of health care facility) were available were 2.37 times more likely to have latrines compared to those who lived in a villages in which health institutions were not found, (AOR = 2.37, 95% CI 2.14, 2.64) (Table 3).
Table 3

Factors associated with coverage of latrine in Dabat District, Northwest Ethiopia, March–April, 2017

Variables

Prevalence of latrine

Yes

No

COR (95% CI)

AOR (95% CI)

Educational status*

 Illiterate

91

146

1.00

1.00

 Able to write and read

38

58

1.05 (0.9, 1.3)

0.93 (0.8, 1.1)

 Primary level

23

17

2.17 (1.9, 2.5)

2.20 (11.7, 2.8)

 Secondary level

35

4

14.04 (9.8, 20.2)

8.90 (6.7, 9.7)

 College and above

16

1

25.67 (6.5,101.5)

10.21 (4.9, 21.3)

CLTS conducted in the kebele*

 Yes

145

137

1.62 (1.4, 1.9)

1.78 (1.6, 2.0)

 No

58

89

1.00

1.00

Climate*

 Lowland

26

100

1.00

1.00

 Highland

159

80

7.64 (1.8, 32.2)

4.29 (3.67, 5.02)

 Semi highland

18

46

1.51 (0.8, 0.0)

0.99 (0.85, 1.15)

Health institution in the kebele*

 Yes

139

93

3.11 (1.87, 5.16)

2.37 (2.14, 2.64)

 No

64

133

1.00

1.00

AOR adjusted odd ratio, COR crude odd ratio, CI confidence interval

* P-value < 0.05 in the multivariable regression

Discussion

We identified that 47% (95% CI 42.5, 52.0) of the households had latrine. The factors statistically significantly associated with latrine ownership were climatic conditions, CLTS conducted in the kebele, availability of health institution in the kebele, and the educational status of the head of the household.

The coverage of latrines in Dabat district was lower than that reported from studies conducted elsewhere in Ethiopia; suburb of Bahir Dar town (58.4%), Debre Tabor town (93.5%), Kersa district (89.7%) and national coverage (61%) [11, 13, 15, 16]. The differences observed in the finding from suburbs of Bahir Dar town, specifically, may be due to the fact that the suburbs are surrounding the capital of Amhara Regional State in which many non-governmental organizations have been intervening in WASH (Water Sanitation and Hygiene) activities that might have created high public awareness, while the significant difference with the findings in Debre Tabor town and the national survey may obviously be due to the fact that the majority the participants of this study were mainly rural households.

As to the factors responsible for latrine ownership, households found in highland climatic zone were 3.3 times more likely to have latrines compared to households in lowland climatic zones. This is consistent with the finding in Hulet Eju Enessie district, Ethiopia that households in highland climatic zone were more likely to own latrines compared to their counterpart lowlanders [5]. This might be related to variations specifically in the soil and/or temperature in the climatic zones which are believed to affect the construction and durability of latrines [1719]. Households whose kebeles were subjected to CLTS program were 1.78 times more likely to have latrines compared to those that did not part of the CLTS program. This was also evident in a study conducted in Kersa district where latrine coverage and utilization was high among CLTS implemented-kebeles than those who did not implement [10]. This might happen because CLTS program teaches the community based on evidences, examples and in ways households develop internal motivation on latrine construction and maintenance [2022]. Households that lived in villages in which health institutions (at least health posts—the lowest level of health care facility) were available were 2.37 times more likely to have latrines compared to those who lived in a villages in which health institutions were not found. This finding corresponds the results reported by a study conducted in the suburb of Bahir Dar town [11] and India [23]. This is because as health facilities become closer to households, there is a possibility for household to get updated health information continuously. This can in part be evident that the prevalence of latrine was significantly increased among urban households as revealed by a study conducted in the suburbs of Bahir Dar and Debre Tabor town [11, 15]. In this study, educational status of heads of the households was found to positively affect the availability of latrines. There is a consistent evidence that educational status positively affects latrine availability [9, 24].

Overall, CLTS conducted in the kebele, proximity of health facility, climatic conditions and educational status were identified to be important predictor variables. Thus, we suggest strengthening and scaling up of community interventions, Community-Lead Total Sanitation program specifically.

Limitations

Data relating to household income, and use of latrine and hand washing facilities were gathered based on interviewing, which might have resulted inaccurate responses.

Abbreviations

CLTS: 

Community Lead Total Sanitation

CSA: 

Central Statistical Agency

EDHS: 

Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey

FMOH: 

Federal Ministry of Health

HAD: 

health development arm

HEW: 

health extension worker

UNICEF: 

United Nations Children’s Fund

WASH: 

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

WHO: 

World Health Organization

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

DAZ: research idea generation, protocol development, data analysis and report write up. KAG: protocol development, data collection, data analysis and report write up. FAM: protocol development, data collection, data analysis and report write up. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

First of all, we would like to thank our study participants and data collectors for their effort without whom we would not have such a quality data.

We would also like to appreciate the Dabat district health department for allowing us conduct the study in the district.

We want to, finally, acknowledge University of Gondar for providing the necessary information about the household size in the district and surveillance field kebeles.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

Data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable requests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Review Board of University of Gondar and informed oral consent was taken from every household who participated in the study.

Funding

The study was funded by University of Gondar. The university funded activities related to questionnaire printing, data collection, supervision, and report printing.

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)
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia

References

  1. WHO, UNICEF. Progress on sanitation and drinking water—2015 update and MDG assessment. Geneva, New York City: WHO and UNICEF; 2015.Google Scholar
  2. Prüss-Üstün A, Corvalán C. Preventing disease through healthy environments. Towards an estimate of the environmental burden of disease. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006.Google Scholar
  3. FMOH Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Health. National hygiene and sanitation strategy; 2005. to enable 100% adoption of improved hygiene and sanitation. Addis Ababa: FMOH Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Health; 2005.Google Scholar
  4. Yimam YT, Gelaye KA, Chercos DH. Latrine utilization and associated factors among people living in rural areas of Denbia district, Northwest Ethiopia, 2013, a cross-sectional study. Pan Afr Med J. 2014;18:334.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. 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).Google Scholar
  6. WHO/sanitation. http://www.who.int/topics/sanitation/en. Accessed 23 Apr 2018.
  7. Banda K, Sarkar R, Gopal S, Govindarajan J, Harijan BB, Jeyakumar MB, et al. Water handling, sanitation and defecation practices in rural southern India: a knowledge, attitudes and practices study. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2007;101(11):1124–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. O’Connell K. What influences open defecation and latrine ownership in rural households?: findings from a global review. 2014.Google Scholar
  10. Eshete N, Beyene A, Terefe G. Implementation of Community-Led Total Sanitation and hygiene approach on the prevention of diarrheal disease in Kersa District, Jimma Zone Ethiopia. Sci J Public Health. 2015;3(5):669–76.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Awoke W, Muche S. latrine coverage and associated factors among rural communities in the District of Bahir Dar Zuria, Ethiopia. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):99.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. CSA. Ethiopia demographic and health survey 2011. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Calverton, Maryland, USA: Central Statistical Agency and ICF International; 2012. p. 2012.Google Scholar
  13. CSA, ICF. Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2016. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: CSA and ICF; 2016.Google Scholar
  14. FMOH. Health Sector Development Programme IV. In: FMOH, editor. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: 2011.Google Scholar
  15. Tafere Y, Woldie M, Assefa H. Investigations of latrine coverage and associated factors among Debretabor town, Amhara Region North west Ethiopia. Int J Public Health Sci (IJPHS). 2016;5(2):137–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Oljira D, Berkessa T. Latrine use and determinant factors in Southwest Ethiopia. J Epidemiol Public Health Rev. 2016;1(6):1–5.Google Scholar
  17. Sinha A, Nagel CL, Schmidt WP, Torondel B, Boisson S, Routray P, et al. Assessing patterns and determinants of latrine use in rural settings: a longitudinal study in Odisha, India. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2017;220(5):906–15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Alemu F, Kumie A, Medhin G, Gebre T, Godfrey P. A socio-ecological analysis of barriers to the adoption, sustainability and consistent use of sanitation facilities in rural Ethiopia. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):706.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Oswald WE, Stewart AE, Flanders WD, Kramer MR, et al. Prediction of low community sanitation coverage using environmental and sociodemographic factors in Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;95(3):709–19.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Sah S, Negussie A. Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS): addressing the challenges of scale and sustainability in rural Africa. Desalination. 2009;248(1–3):666–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Guiteras R, Levinsohn J, Mobarak AM. Encouraging sanitation investment in the developing world: a cluster-randomized trial. Science. 2015;348(6237):903–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Sigler R, Mahmoudi L, Graham JP. Analysis of behavioral change techniques in Community-Led Total Sanitation programs. Health Promotion Int. 2014;30(1):16–28.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Sheethal M, Shashikantha S. A cross-sectional study on the coverage and utilization of sanitary latrine in rural field practice area of a tertiary care hospital in Southern Karnataka, India. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2017;3(6):1540–3.Google Scholar
  24. Rodgers AF, Ajono LA, Gyapong JO, Hagan M, et al. Characteristics of latrine promotion participants and non-participants; inspection of latrines; and perceptions of household latrines in Northern Ghana. Trop Med Int Health. 2007;12(6):772–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2019

Advertisement