Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28749766›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2017

Identifying Potential Sources of Exposure Along the Child Feces Management Pathway: A Cross-Sectional Study Among Urban Slums in Odisha, India.

Fiona Majorin, Belen Torondel, Parimita Routray, Manaswini Rout, Thomas Clasen

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Prevalence and molecular characterization ofFood and waterborne parasitology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Determinants of disposal of child faeces in latrines in urban slums of Odisha, India: a cross-sectional study.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2019
    Article
  16. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Fiona MajorinDepartment of Disease Control, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Belen TorondelDepartment of Disease Control, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Parimita RoutrayDepartment of Disease Control, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Manaswini RoutDepartment of Disease Control, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Thomas ClasenDepartment of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBEmory University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Child feces represent a particular health risk to children due to increased prevalence of enteric agents and a higher risk of exposure owing to exploratory behaviors of young children. The safe management of such feces presents a significant challenge, not only for the 2.4 billion who lack access to improved sanitation, but also due to unhygienic feces collection and disposal and poor subsequent handwashing practices. We assessed potential sources of fecal exposure by documenting child feces management practices in a cross-sectional study of 851 children < 5 years of age from 694 households in 42 slums in two cities in Odisha, India. No preambulatory children and only 27.4% of ambulatory children defecated directly in the latrine. Children that did not defecate in a latrine mainly defecated on the ground, whether they were preambulatory or ambulatory. Use of diapers (1.2%) or potties (2.8%) was low. If the feces were removed from the ground, the defecation area was usually cleaned, if at all, only with water. Most children's feces were disposed of in surrounding environment, with only 6.5% deposited into any kind of latrine, including unimproved. Handwashing with soap of the caregiver after child feces disposal and child anal cleaning with soap after defecation was also uncommon. While proper disposal of child feces in an improved latrine still represents a major challenge, control of the risks presented requires attention to the full range of exposures associated to the management of child feces, and not simply the place of disposal.

Indexed as

CitiesFecesPoverty AreasSanitary EngineeringChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansIndiaInfantInfant, NewbornMaleToilet Facilities

Identifiers

PMID28749766
PMCPMC5590566
OpenAlexW2739237147

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.