Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34366669›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health insights2021

Bacteriological Quality of Drinking Water and Associated Factors at the Internally Displaced People Sites, Gedeo Zone, Southern Ethiopia: A Cross-sectional Study.

Zemachu Ashuro, Mekonnen Birhanie Aregu, Girum Gebremeskel Kanno, Belay Negassa, Negasa Eshete Soboksa, Awash Alembo, Eshetu Ararsa, Fikru Badecha, Solomon Tassew

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health insights, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

9 authors.

Zemachu AshuroSchool of Public Health, College of Health Sciences and Medicine, Dilla University, Dilla, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4098-940X
Mekonnen Birhanie AreguSchool of Public Health, College of Health Sciences and Medicine, Dilla University, Dilla, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4110-0345
Girum Gebremeskel KannoSchool of Public Health, College of Health Sciences and Medicine, Dilla University, Dilla, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6689-1983
Belay NegassaSchool of Public Health, College of Health Sciences and Medicine, Dilla University, Dilla, Ethiopia.
Negasa Eshete SoboksaSchool of Public Health, College of Health Sciences and Medicine, Dilla University, Dilla, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3451-175X
Awash AlemboSchool of Public Health, College of Health Sciences and Medicine, Dilla University, Dilla, Ethiopia.
Eshetu ArarsaGedeo Zonal Health Department, Dilla, Ethiopia.
Fikru BadechaSchool of Public Health, College of Health Sciences and Medicine, Dilla University, Dilla, Ethiopia.
Solomon TassewSchool of Public Health, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProviding safe and adequate Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) services in response to emergencies is a major problem. Globally, few studies have investigated the bacteriological quality of drinking water at the IDP sites. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the bacteriological quality of drinking water and associated factors at the IDP sites of Gedeo zone.

methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted on 213 water samples collected from November to December 2018. The membrane filter technique was used to retain bacteria and lauryl sulphate broth media was used to detect faecal coliforms. After incubation of 14 hours at 44°C, faecal coliforms with yellow colonies were counted and expressed in terms of CFU/100 ml of water. The data were entered into Epi data version 3.1 and exported to STATA version 14 for analysis. Binary logistic regression analysis with 95%CI and P ⩽ .05 was used to identify factors associated with an outcome variable.

resultsOut of 213 water samples collected, 107 (50.2%) samples were tested positive for faecal coliforms. The presence of latrines in uphill (AOR: 6.7, 95%CI: 1.0-42.9), other sources of pollution (AOR: 5.0, 95%CI: 1.1-22.3), inadequate fencing (AOR: 7.1, 95%CI: 1.3-40.2) and lack of diversion ditch (AOR: 6.3, 95%CI: 1.0-37.6) were factors significantly associated with faecal contamination of springs. Dug wells that had a latrine within 10 m (AOR: 11.4, 95%CI: 1.8-72.1), other pollution sources within 10 m (AOR: 7.9, 95%CI: 1.9-32.4), inadequate fencing (AOR: 2.8, 95%CI: 1.0-7.9), drawing water using a bucket with rope (AOR: 7.3, 95%CI: 1.6-33.4) and unsanitary well cover (AOR: 3.4, 95%CI: 1.1-10.4) were factors significantly associated with faecal contamination of wells.

conclusionsThe majority of the water sources in internally displaced people sites were tested positive for faecal coliforms. The presence of latrine in uphill, other sources of pollution, inadequate fencing, lack of diversion ditch, drawing water using a bucket with rope and unsanitary well cover were factors associated with the presence of faecal coliforms. Therefore, adequate fencing, proper diversion ditch construction and hygiene promotion should be done to protect water sources from faecal contamination. Furthermore, latrines and other point sources of contamination should be located at least 10 m away or at a lower elevation from water sources.

Indexed as

Bacteriological qualityE. coliinternally displaced people

Identifiers

PMID34366669
PMCPMC8299882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.