Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32164375›Full record

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.

Paschal A Apanga, Joshua V Garn, Zoe Sakas, Matthew C Freeman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Paschal A ApangaSchool of Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557, USA.
Joshua V GarnSchool of Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557, USA.
Zoe SakasGangarosa Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Matthew C FreemanGangarosa Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1517-2572
Emory University · USUniversity of Nevada, Reno · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Models, TheoreticalRural PopulationSanitationAfrica South of the SaharaAsiaCross-Sectional StudiesEconomicsFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleWater SupplycoverageequitysanitationvulnerableWASH

Identifiers

PMID32164375
PMCPMC7084698
OpenAlexW3011171899

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.