Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35674667›Full record

Trial reportEnvironmental health perspectives2022

The Impact of Pro-Poor Sanitation Subsidies in Open Defecation-Free Communities: A Randomized, Controlled Trial in Rural Ghana.

John T Trimmer, Joyce Kisiangani, Rachel Peletz, Kara Stuart, Prince Antwi-Agyei, Jeff Albert, Ranjiv Khush, Caroline Delaire

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Environmental health perspectives, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

John T TrimmerAquaya Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID 0000-0002-4809-6684
Joyce KisianganiAquaya Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.
Rachel PeletzAquaya Institute, San Anselmo, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9256-0800
Kara StuartAquaya Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID 0000-0002-4454-868X
Prince Antwi-AgyeiUniversity of Energy and Natural Resources, Sunyani, Ghana.
Jeff AlbertAquaya Institute, San Anselmo, California, USA.
Ranjiv KhushAquaya Institute, San Anselmo, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2474-1191
Caroline DelaireAquaya Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID 0000-0001-8359-6847
University of Energy and Natural Resources · GH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccording to the World Health Organization/United Nations International Children's Fund Joint Monitoring Program,

objectivesThis study determined the impacts of a pro-poor sanitation subsidy program on sanitation conditions among the most vulnerable households and others in the community.

methodsIn 109 post-ODF communities in Northern Ghana, we conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate a pro-poor subsidy program that identified the most vulnerable households through community consultation to receive vouchers for durable toilet substructures. We surveyed households to assess toilet coverage, quality, and use before and after the intervention and tracked program costs.

resultsOverall, sanitation conditions deteriorated substantially from baseline to endline (average of 21 months). In control communities (not receiving the pro-poor subsidy), open defecation increased from 25% (baseline) to 69% (endline). The subsidy intervention attenuated this deterioration (open defecation increased from 25% to only 54% in subsidy communities), with the greatest impacts among voucher-eligible households. Noneligible households in compounds with subsidized toilets also exhibited lower open defecation levels owing to in-compound sharing (common in this context). CLTS followed by the subsidy program would benefit more households than CLTS alone but would cost 21-37% more per household that no longer practiced open defecation or upgraded to a durable toilet. DISCUSSION: Sanitation declines, often due to toilet collapse, suggest a need for approaches beyond CLTS alone. This subsidy program attenuated declines, but durable toilets likely remained unaffordable for noneligible households. Targeting criteria more closely aligned with sanitation inequities, such as household heads who are female or did not complete primary education, may help to generate greater and more sustainable impacts in Northern Ghana and, potentially, other contexts facing toilet collapse and limited market access. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10443.

Indexed as

SanitationToilet FacilitiesChildDefecationFemaleGhanaHumansMaleRural Population

Identifiers

PMID35674667
PMCPMC9176208
OpenAlexW4282935538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.