Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30671722›Full record

Trial reportEcoHealth2019

Determinants of Cookstoves and Fuel Choice Among Rural Households in India.

Vikas Menghwani, Hisham Zerriffi, Puneet Dwivedi, Julian D Marshall, Andrew Grieshop, Rob Bailis

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in EcoHealth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Role of Education and Attitudes in Cooking Fuel Choice: Evidence from two states in India.Energy for sustainable development : the journal of the International Energy Initiative · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Linkages between Respiratory Symptoms in Women and Biofuel Use: Regional Case Study of Rajasthan, India.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    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.

Vikas MenghwaniIRES, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Hisham ZerriffiFaculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Puneet DwivediWarnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, USA.
Julian D MarshallCivil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Andrew GrieshopDepartment of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA.
Rob BailisStockholm Environment Institute - US Center, 11 Curtis Ave, Somerville, MA, 02144, USA. rob.bailis@sei.org.

Funding

EPA 83542102
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Roughly 2.8 billion people depend on solid fuels for cooking needs, resulting in a tremendous burden of disease from exposure to household air pollution. Despite decades of effort to promote cleaner cooking technologies, displacement of polluting technologies has progressed slowly. This paper describes results of a randomized controlled trial in which eight communities in two regions of rural India were presented with a range of cooking choices including improved solid fuel stoves and clean cooking options like liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and induction stoves. Using survey data and logistic and multinomial regression, we identify factors associated with two outcomes: (1) pre-intervention ownership of non-solid fuel technologies and (2) household preferences for clean fuels from the range of cooking options offered. The analysis allows us to examine the influence of education, wealth, gender empowerment, stove pricing, and stove exchanges, among other variables. The majority of participants across all communities selected the cleanest options, LPG and induction, irrespective of price, but there is some variation in preferences. Wealth and higher caste stand out as significant predictors of pre-intervention ownership and non-solid fuel cooking options as well as preference for cleaner technologies offered through the intervention. The experimental treatments also influence preferences in some communities. When given the opportunity to exchange, communities in one region are more likely to choose solid fuel stoves (P < 0.05). Giving free stoves had mixed results; households in one region are more likely to select clean options (P < 0.05), but households in the other region prefer solid fuels (P < 0.10).

Indexed as

Air Pollution, IndoorConsumer BehaviorCookingHumansIndiaRural PopulationSex FactorsSocioeconomic FactorsBiomassHousehold energy transitionImproved cookstoves (ICS)Logistic regressionLPGMultinomial regressionRural India

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.