ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
Assessing the Impact and Equity of an Integrated Rural Sanitation Approach: A Longitudinal Evaluation in 11 Sub-Saharan Africa and Asian Countries.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Access to Basic Sanitation Services and Associated Factors Among Rural Households in South Achefer District, Northwest Ethiopia: A Community-Based Cross-Sectional Study.Environmental health insights · 2026Article
- Designing equity-focused sanitation policies in Sub-Saharan Africa: the critical role of subnational data.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Water and Handwashing in a Drought-Prone Region of Southern Niger: How Environment, Household Infrastructure, and Exposure to Social and Behavior Change Messages Interact.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2023Article
- Challenges of sanitation in developing counties - Evidenced from a study of fourteen towns, Ethiopia.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Article
- Assessing Sustainability Factors for Rural Household Sanitation Coverage in Bhutan, Kenya, Nepal, and Zambia: A Qualitative Analysis.Global health, science and practice · 2022Article
- Assessing the Sustainability of an Integrated Rural Sanitation and Hygiene Approach: A Repeated Cross-Sectional Evaluation in 10 Countries.Global health, science and practice · 2022Article
- The impact of a demand-side sanitation and hygiene promotion intervention on sustained behavior change and health in Amhara, Ethiopia: A cluster-randomized trial.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- Sources and routes of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in water systems in Africa: Are there any sustainable remedies?The Science of the total environment · 2021Review
- Can open-defecation free (ODF) communities be sustained? A cross-sectional study in rural Ghana.PloS oneArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Few rural sanitation programs have documented large increases in sanitation coverage or have assessed if interventions equitably increase sanitation coverage for vulnerable groups. We characterize the impact of the Sustainable Sanitation and Hygiene for All (SSH4A) approach on key program WASH (water, sanitation, and hygiene) indicators, and also assess if these increases in WASH coverage are equitably reaching vulnerable groups. The SSH4A approach was administered in 12 program areas in 11 countries, including Bhutan, Ethiopia, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Mozambique, Nepal, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. Repeated cross-sectional household surveys were administered over four rounds at annual follow-up rounds from 2014 to 2018. Surveys were conducted in an average of 21,411 households at each round of data collection. Overall, sanitation coverage increased by 53 percentage points between baseline and the final round of data collection (95% CI: 52%, 54%). We estimate that 4.8 million people gained access to basic sanitation in these areas during the project period. Most countries also demonstrated movement up the sanitation ladder, in addition to increases in handwashing stations and safe disposal of child feces. When assessing equity-if sanitation coverage levels were similar comparing vulnerable and non-vulnerable groups-we observed that increases in coverage over time were generally comparable between vulnerable groups and non-vulnerable groups. However, the increase in sanitation coverage was slightly higher for higher wealth households compared to lower wealth households. Results from this study revealed a successful model of rural sanitation service delivery. However, further work should be done to explore the specific mechanisms that led to success of the intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.