Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31331313›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

Prevalence and associated factors of safe and improved infant and young children stool disposal in Ethiopia: evidence from demographic and health survey.

Biniyam Sahiledengle

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Uncovering social and environmental factors that increase the burden of climate-sensitive diarrheal infections on children.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Biniyam SahiledengleDepartment of Public Health, Madda Walabu University Goba Referral Hospital, Bale-Goba, Ethiopia. biniyam.sahiledengle@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1114-4849
Madda Walabu University · ET

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInfant and young children stools are often considered innocuous, and are not disposed of safely despite having a higher pathogen load than adult feces. In Ethiopia, sanitary management of young children's stool is often overlooked and transmission of fecal-oral diseases is still a significant health burden. The study, therefore, describes the prevalence and associated factors of safe and improved child stool disposal.

methodsData from the fourth round of the Ethiopian Health and Demographic Survey (EDHS) conducted in 2016 was used for this analysis. Descriptive statistics were computed. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with safe and improved child stool disposal.

resultsThe prevalence of safe and improved child stool disposal in Ethiopia was 36.9% (95%CI: 33.4-40.5%) and 5.3% (95%CI: 4.3-6.5%) respectively. There was regional variation in the prevalence of safe and improved child stool disposal. The odds of safe stool disposal among households with richest wealth index had 4.54 (AOR: 4.54; 95%CI: 2.89-7.12), richer 3.64 (AOR: 3.64; 95%CI: 2.46-5.38), middle 3.26 (AOR: 2.26; 95%CI: 2.27-4.68), and poorer 1.93 (AOR: 1.93; 95%CI: 1.39-2.68) times higher odds of practicing safe child stool disposal than households with poorest wealth index. Similarly, households found in richest, richer, middle, and poorer wealth index had also (AOR: 20.23; 95%CI: 8.59-47.66), (AOR: 12.53; 95%CI: 5.59-28.10) (AOR: 4.91; 95%CI: 1.92-12.55), and (AOR: 4.50; 95%CI: 2.06-9.84) higher odds of practicing improved child stool disposal than households from poorest wealth index respectively. The odds of safe child stool disposal were higher among households whose children age between 6 and 11 months (AOR: 1.57; 95%CI: 1.17-2.09), 12-17 months (AOR: 1.39; 95%CI: 1.00-1.95), and 18-23 months (AOR: 1.43; 95%CI: 1.03-1.99) than households whose children age between 0 and 5 months. The odds of safe child stool disposal were 1.31 (AOR: 1.31; 95%CI: 1.00-1.72) and 1.44 (AOR: 1.44; 95%CI: 1.04-2.01) times higher among mothers whose age between 25 and 34 and greater than 34 years compared to mothers whose age between 15 and 24 years, respectively. In addition, children's stools are more likely to be disposed of safely in urban households than in rural households (AOR: 3.12; 95%CI: 1.86-5.22). The present study also revealed households with access to improved sanitation facilities fail to use them for disposal of child stool (AOR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.67-1.45).

conclusionsThe prevalence of safe and improved child stool disposal in Ethiopia was found to be very low. Household socio-demographic and economic determinate were the key factors associated with child stool disposal. Appropriate strategic interventions to ensure safe and improved child stool disposal in Ethiopia is necessary. In addition, integrating child stool management into the existing sanitation interventions programs should be strongly recommended.

Indexed as

FecesAdolescentAdultDemographyEthiopiaFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMiddle AgedMothersPrevalenceSafetySanitationSocioeconomic FactorsChild stoolEDHSEthiopiaImproved disposalSafe stool disposal

Identifiers

PMID31331313
PMCPMC6647302
OpenAlexW2963411453

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.