Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31260506›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

What motivates open defecation? A qualitative study from a rural setting in Nepal.

Navin Bhatt, Shyam Sundar Budhathoki, Don Eliseo Iii Lucero-Prisno, Gambhir Shrestha, Meika Bhattachan, Jeevan Thapa, Avinash K Sunny, Pawan Upadhyaya, Anup Ghimire, Paras K Pokharel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Cumulative Incidence of Dysentery Among Under-Five Children in Underprivileged Urban Areas of Bhopal: A One-Year Cohort Study.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The Status of Sanitation in Malawi: Is SDG6.2 Achievable?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    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

10 authors.

Navin BhattB. P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal.
Shyam Sundar BudhathokiB. P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal.ORCID 0000-0002-8614-1087
Don Eliseo Iii Lucero-PrisnoLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2179-6365
Gambhir ShresthaB. P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal.ORCID 0000-0002-9975-9804
Meika BhattachanB. P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal.
Jeevan ThapaB. P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal.
Avinash K SunnyB. P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal.ORCID 0000-0002-9965-181X
Pawan UpadhyayaB. P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal.
Anup GhimireB. P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal.
Paras K PokharelB. P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOpen defecation is ongoing in Nepal despite the rise in efforts for increasing latrine coverage and its use. Understanding the reasons for open defecation would complement the ongoing efforts to achieve the 'open defecation free' status in Nepal. This study aimed at exploring different motivations of people who practice open defecation in a village in Nepal.

methodsThis study was conducted among the people from the Hattimudha village in Morang district of eastern Nepal, who practiced open defecation. Maximum variation sampling method was used to recruit participants for 20 in-depth interviews and 2 focus group discussions. We adopted a content analysis approach to analyze the data.

resultsWe categorized different reasons for open defecation as motivation by choice and motivation by compulsion. Open defecation by choice as is expressed as a medium for socializing, a habit and an enjoyable outdoor activity that complies with spiritual and religious norms. Open defecation by compulsion include reasons such as not having a latrine at home or having an alternative use for the latrine structures. Despite having a private latrine at home or access to a public latrine, people were compelled to practice open defecation due to constraints of norms restricting latrine use and hygiene issues in general. For women the issues with privacy and issues refraining women to use the same latrine as men compelled women to look for open defecation places.

conclusionOpen defecation is either a voluntary choice or a compulsion. This choice is closely linked with personal preferences, cultural and traditional norms with special concerns for privacy for women and girls in different communities. The ongoing campaigns to promote latrine construction and its use needs to carefully consider these factors in order to reduce the open defecation practices and increase the use of sanitary latrines.

Indexed as

CultureHabitsMotivationAdultAgedCompulsive BehaviorDefecationFamily CharacteristicsFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansHygieneMaleMiddle AgedNepalQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID31260506
PMCPMC6602253

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.