Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28606171›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2017

Latrine coverage and its utilisation in a rural village of Eastern Nepal: a community-based cross-sectional study.

Shyam Sundar Budhathoki, Gambhir Shrestha, Meika Bhattachan, Suman Bahadur Singh, Nilambar Jha, Paras K Pokharel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Effects of Community Health Improvement Process on Sanitary Latrine Usage in a Rural Village of Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Shyam Sundar BudhathokiSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal. ss.budhathoki@gmail.com.
Gambhir ShresthaSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal.
Meika BhattachanSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal.
Suman Bahadur SinghSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal.
Nilambar JhaSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal.
Paras K PokharelSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA little more than 1/3rd of the rural households in Nepal have improved latrine facility. The government of Nepal is working towards making an open defecation free area all over Nepal. There is no data found in literature searches regarding the status of latrines and its utilisation in Nepal. This study aims to estimate the coverage and utilisation of latrine and its associated factors in a rural community of Nepal.

methodsWe conducted a cross sectional study in March 2015-September 2015 among 625 households in Hattimuda Village, Morang district in Eastern Nepal using semi-structured pre-tested questionnaire with observational checklists.

resultsOut of 623 households, 473 (76.9%) have latrine facilities. There is an increase in latrine coverage in Hattimuda by 37% (38.9% in 2011 to 75.9% in 2016). Majority of the latrines (89.9%) were functional, however 32.3% needs maintenance. The extent of latrine utilisation among those households with a toilet at home was satisfactory (94.3%). Presence of child below 5 years of age at home (OR 2.37, 95% CI 0.05-0.46), functional latrine (OR 27.37, 95% CI 6.84-109.45), frequency of cleaning (OR 3.66, 95% CI 1.09-12.29) and latrine constructed with self-initiation (OR 4.21, 95% CI 1.06-16.66) are factors significantly associated with the utilisation of the latrine.

conclusionsWhile the coverage needs to be increased, appropriate interventions to increase the utilisation of latrine needs to be in place so that the village moves closer to open defecation free (ODF) status. As other studies are not found from Nepal, the findings from this study can be used a reference for other rural areas of Nepal.

Indexed as

Rural PopulationToilet FacilitiesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesFamily CharacteristicsFemaleHousingHumansMaleMiddle AgedNepalSocioeconomic FactorsLatrine coverageOpen defecation free initiativeOpen field defecationSanitation in rural Nepal

Identifiers

PMID28606171
PMCPMC5469064

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.