Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31384071›Full record

Trial reportBulletin of the World Health Organization2019

Long-term impact of a community-led sanitation campaign in India, 2005-2016.

Jennifer Orgill-Meyer, Subhrendu K Pattanayak, Namrata Chindarkar, Katherine L Dickinson, Upendra Panda, Shailesh Rai, Barendra Sahoo, Ashok Singha, Marc Jeuland

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. What works in sanitation promotion?Health promotion international · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jennifer Orgill-MeyerDepartment of Government and Public Health Program, Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, PA, United States of America (USA).
Subhrendu K PattanayakSanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, USA.
Namrata ChindarkarLee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Katherine L DickinsonColorado School of Public Health, Aurora, USA.
Upendra PandaCTRAN Consulting, Bhubaneswar, India.
Shailesh RaiAmnesty International, Karnataka, India.
Barendra SahooCTRAN Consulting, Bhubaneswar, India.
Ashok SinghaCTRAN Consulting, Bhubaneswar, India.
Marc JeulandSanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, USA.
Duke University · USColorado School of Public Health · USNational University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the long-term impact of a community-led total sanitation campaign in rural India.

methodsLocal organizations in Odisha state, India worked with researchers to evaluate a community-led total sanitation campaign, which aimed to increase the demand for household latrines by raising awareness of the social costs of poor sanitation. The intervention ran from February to March 2006 in 20 randomly-selected villages and 20 control villages. Within sampled villages, we surveyed a random subset of households (around 28 households per village) at baseline in 2005 and over the subsequent 10-year period. We analysed changes in latrine ownership, latrine functionality and open defecation among approximately 1000 households. We estimated linear probability models that examined differences between households in intervention and control villages in 2006, 2010 and 2016.

findingsIn 2010, 4 years after the intervention, ownership of latrines was significantly higher (29.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, CI: 17.5 to 41.2) and open defecation was significantly lower (-6.8 percentage points; 95% CI: -13.1 to -1.0) among households in intervention villages, relative to controls. In 2016, intervention households continued to have higher rates of ever owning a latrine (26.3 percentage points; 95% CI: 20.9 to 31.8). However, latrine functionality and open defecation were no longer different across groups, due to both acquisition of latrines by control households and abandonment and deterioration of latrines in intervention homes.

conclusionFuture research should investigate how to maintain and rehabilitate latrines and how to sustain long-term behaviour change.

Indexed as

Rural PopulationCommunity ParticipationDefecationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PromotionHumansIndiaPovertyResidence CharacteristicsSanitationToilet Facilities

Identifiers

PMID31384071
PMCPMC6653825
OpenAlexW2963018979

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.