ArticleInternational health2021
Characteristics of sanitation and hygiene facilities in a slum community in Kampala, Uganda.
Article in International health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Access to Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) practices and their associations with waterborne diseases and malnutrition in Ibrahim Kodbuur District, Hargeisa, Somaliland: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Open defecation free status and its determinants in rural Uganda: a cross-sectional survey.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Shared sanitation facilities and risk of respiratory virus transmission in resource-poor settings: A COVID-19 modeling case study.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
- Latrine Utilization and Associated Factors Among Households in East Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Environmental health insights · 2025Review
- Value chain hygiene practices and microbial contamination of street and market vended ready-to-eat grasshopper,Heliyon · 2024Article
- Life Satisfaction Factors, Stress, and Depressive Symptoms among Young Women Living in Urban Kampala: Findings from the TOPOWA Project Pilot Studies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Fecal Sludge Management and Sanitation Safety: An Assessment in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Environmental health insights · 2024Article
- Access to Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hand Hygiene Facilities in the Peri-Urban and Informal Settlements of Hosanna Town, Southern Ethiopia.Environmental health insights · 2023Article
- A Qualitative Assessment of Place and Mental Health: Perspectives of Young Women Ages 18-24 Living in the Urban Slums of Kampala, Uganda.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Unintended socio-economic and health consequences of COVID-19 among slum dwellers in Kampala, Uganda.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Pattern, predictors and clustering of handwashing practices in India.Journal of infection prevention · 2021Article
- Pit latrines may be a potential risk in rural China and low-income countries when dealing with COVID-19.The Science of the total environment · 2021Article
- Associations Between Improved Water Supply and Sanitation Usage and Childhood Diarrhea in Ethiopia: An Analysis of the 2016 Demographic and Health Survey.Environmental health insights · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study assessed characteristics of sanitation and hygiene facilities in a slum community in Kampala, Uganda.
methodsWe conducted a household-based cross-sectional study among 395 households in Kasubi slum using a semi-structured questionnaire and observational checklist to collect data.
resultsAlmost 98.0% (387/395) of households owned a sanitation facility and 77.0% (298/387) shared it with other households. The most common type of sanitation facility was a pit latrine with slab (66.9% [259/387]). Most (90.5% [305/337]) latrines had a door or shutter, a roof (92.9% [313/337]) and a depth >1.5 m (68.2% [229/337]). Overall, 21.3% (84/395) and 65.6% (259/395) of households had improved and functional sanitation facilities, respectively. Only 16.5% (65/395) of the households had a hand-washing facility. Student-led (adjusted prevalence rate [PR] 2.67 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.83-3.94]) and households that owned their house (adjusted PR 2.17 [95% CI 1.33-3.53]) were 2.67 and 2.17 times more likely to have improved sanitation facilities, respectively. Households that owned their house (adjusted PR 1.90 [95% CI 1.18-3.05]) were 1.9 times more likely to possess a hand-washing facility.
conclusionsThe coverage of improved sanitation and hygiene facilities was low. The majority of households were using a shared pit latrine with a slab that had no hand-washing facility. Sanitation and hygiene interventions should prioritize improving sanitation and hygiene facilities.
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.