Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31603926›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Are current approaches for measuring access to clean water and sanitation inclusive of people with disabilities? Comparison of individual- and household-level access between people with and without disabilities in the Tanahun district of Nepal.

Lena Morgon Banks, Sian White, Adam Biran, Jane Wilbur, Shailes Neupane, Saurav Neupane, Aditi Sharma, Hannah Kuper

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
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 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Lena Morgon BanksInternational Centre for Evidence in Disability, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4585-1103
Sian WhiteEnvironmental Health Group, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Adam BiranEnvironmental Health Group, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Jane WilburInternational Centre for Evidence in Disability, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Shailes NeupaneValley Research Group, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Saurav NeupaneValley Research Group, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Aditi SharmaPennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0791-3219
Hannah KuperInternational Centre for Evidence in Disability, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBPennsylvania State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe critical importance of safe and affordable access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) is highlighted in Goal 6 of the Sustainable Development Goals, which seeks to achieve universal and equitable access for all by 2030. However, people with disabilities-who comprise 15% of the global population-frequently face difficulties meeting their WASH needs. Unmet WASH needs amongst people with disabilities may not be captured through current approaches to tracking progress towards Goal 6, which focus on household- rather than individual-level access.

objectiveTo evaluate access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), at the individual- and household-level, amongst people with disabilities in the Tanahun district of Nepal.

methodsA population-based survey of disability was conducted from August-October 2016 to evaluate access to improved water and sanitation facilities between households with members with disabilities (n = 198) and those without (n = 1,265) in the Tanahun district of Nepal. A nested case-control then compared individual-level access between cases aged 15 and above with disabilities (n = 192) and age-sex-location matched controls without disabilities (n = 189), using the newly developed 21-item "Quality of WASH Access" questionnaire. Multivariate regression was used to compare household- and individual-level indicators between people and households with and without disabilities. In-depth interviews with 18 people with disabilities and their caregivers was conducted to assess the acceptability and appropriateness of the "Quality of WASH Access" questionnaire.

findingsThere were no significant differences between households with and without members with disabilities in access to an improved sanitation facility or water source. However, at the individual-level, people with disabilities experienced significantly greater difficulties accessing water, sanitation and hygiene compared to people without disabilities (p<0.001 for all three scores). Amongst people with disabilities, water difficulty scores were associated with having a physical impairment and greater disability severity; sanitation difficulty scores were associated with lower socioeconomic status and physical or self-care limitations; and hygiene difficulty scores were positively associated with self-care limitations and lower socioeconomic status, and inversely associated with hearing impairments. Qualitative research found the "Quality of WASH Access" questionnaire was well understood by participants and captured many of the challenges they faced. Additional challenges not covered by the tool included: (1) time spent on WASH, (2) consistency of access, (3) sufficiency of access, and (4) dignity of access.

conclusionPeople with disabilities face substantial challenges to meeting their WASH needs, particularly in using services autonomously, consistently, hygienically, with dignity and privacy, and without pain or fear of abuse. These challenges are not captured through household-level data, and so individual-level WASH access are needed to monitor progress towards universal WASH access. The Quality of WASH Access questionnaire may provide a useful data collection tool.

Indexed as

Family CharacteristicsPersons with DisabilitiesSanitationWaterAdolescentAdultAgedChildFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNepalRegression AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesWater

Identifiers

PMID31603926
PMCPMC6788693
OpenAlexW2980022872

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.