Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32587484›Full record

ArticleAnnual review of environment and resources2019

Sanitation for Low-Income Regions: A Cross-Disciplinary Review.

Christopher Hyun, Zachary Burt, Yoshika Crider, Kara L Nelson, C S Sharada Prasad, Swati D G Rayasam, William Tarpeh, Isha Ray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annual review of environment and resources, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Comparative life cycle assessment of on-site sanitation systems using lagoons or drying beds for fecal sludge treatment in low-income tropical countries.Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Understanding Open Defecation in the Age ofInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 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.

Christopher HyunEnergy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA.
Zachary BurtDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Yoshika CriderEnergy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA.
Kara L NelsonDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA.
C S Sharada PrasadSchool of Development, Azim Premji University, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560100, India.
Swati D G RayasamIndependent Researcher, Berkeley, California 94703, USA.
William TarpehChemical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
Isha RayEnergy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA.

Funding

Interdisciplinary Training in Climate and HealthT32ES023770 · NIEHS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI SHAMAN, JEFFREY L · 2014 to 2019
$1.5M
NIEHS NIH HHS T32 ES023770
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sanitation research focuses primarily on containing human waste and preventing disease; thus, it has traditionally been dominated by the fields of environmental engineering and public health. Over the past 20 years, however, the field has grown broader in scope and deeper in complexity, spanning diverse disciplinary perspectives. In this article, we review the current literature in the range of disciplines engaged with sanitation research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We find that perspectives on what sanitation is, and what sanitation policy should prioritize, vary widely. We show how these diverse perspectives augment the conventional sanitation service chain, a framework describing the flow of waste from capture to disposal. We review how these perspectives can inform progress toward equitable sanitation for all [i.e., Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6]. Our key message is that both material and nonmaterial flows-and both technological and social functions-make up a sanitation "system." The components of the sanitation service chain are embedded within the flows of finance, decision making, and labor that make material flows of waste possible. The functions of capture, storage, transport, treatment, reuse, and disposal are interlinked with those of ensuring equity and affordability. We find that a multilayered understanding of sanitation, with contributions from multiple disciplines, is necessary to facilitate inclusive and robust research toward the goal of sanitation for all.

Indexed as

gender and sanitationhealth and sanitationhuman right to sanitationsanitation service chainSustainable Development Goalswaste treatment and reuse

Identifiers

PMID32587484
PMCPMC7316187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.