Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32086016›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of hygiene and environmental health2020

Impact of an intervention to improve pit latrine emptying practices in low income urban neighborhoods of Maputo, Mozambique.

Drew Capone, Helen Buxton, Oliver Cumming, Robert Dreibelbis, Jackie Knee, Rassul Nalá, Ian Ross, Joe Brown

Open access · hybridAbstract readControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of hygiene and environmental health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. PersistentEnvironmental science & technology · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Water and health seminar and special issue highlight ideas that will change the field.International journal of hygiene and environmental health · 2020
    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 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Drew CaponeCivil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Helen BuxtonDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Oliver CummingDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Robert DreibelbisDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Jackie KneeCivil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA; Department of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Rassul NaláMinistério da Saúde, Instituto Nacional de Saúde Maputo, Maputo, Mozambique.
Ian RossDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Joe BrownCivil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA. Electronic address: joe.brown@ce.gatech.edu.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBGeorgia Institute of Technology · USInstituto Nacional de Saúde · MZUniversity of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Safe fecal sludge management (FSM) - the hygienic emptying, transport, and treatment for reuse or disposal of fecal sludge - is an essential part of safely managed sanitation, especially in towns and cities in low- and middle-income countries with limited sewer coverage. The need for safe and affordable FSM services has become more acute as cities grow and densify. Hygienic pit-emptying uses equipment that limits direct human exposure with fecal sludge and hygienic transport conveys fecal sludge offsite for treatment. We evaluated whether a program of on-site sanitation infrastructure upgrades and FSM capacity development in urban Maputo, Mozambique resulted in more hygienic pit-emptying and safe transportation of fecal sludge. We compared reported emptying practices among multi-household compounds receiving sanitation upgrades with control compounds, both from the Maputo Sanitation (MapSan) trial at 24-36 months after the intervention. Intervention compounds (comprising 1-40 households, median = 3) received a subsidized pour-flush latrine to septic tank system that replaced an existing shared latrine; control compounds continued using existing shared latrines. We surveyed compound residents and analyzed available municipal data on FSM in the city. Due to the recent construction of the intervention, emptying was more frequent in control compounds: 5.6% (15/270) of intervention compounds and 30% (74/247) of controls had emptied their on-site sanitation system in the previous year. Among those compounds which had emptied a sanitation facility in the previous year, intervention compounds were 3.8 (95% CI: 1.4, 10) times more likely to have to done so hygienically. Results suggest that the construction of subsidized pour-flush sanitation systems increased hygienic emptying of fecal sludge in this setting. Further gains in hygienic emptying in urban Maputo may be limited by affordability and physical accessibility.

Indexed as

CitiesCross-Sectional StudiesFecesHealth PromotionHumansMozambiquePovertyResidence CharacteristicsSanitationSewageTransportationSewageFecal sludge managementFecal sludge transportHygienic pit latrine emptyingOn-site sanitationpour-flush latrinesSanitation intervention

Identifiers

PMID32086016
PMCPMC7184672
OpenAlexW3008588323

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.