ArticleCureus2022
The Use of Sanitary Latrines and the Practice of Open-Air Defecation in a Rural Setup in Perambalur District: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Relationship Between Ambulatory Blood Pressure and Atherogenic Index with LV Geometry Pattern in Obese Children: Results from a Cross-Sectional Study in Serbia.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Article
- Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in a Conflict Area: A Cross-Sectional Study in South Kordofan, Sudan.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2025Article
- Assessing Rural Communities in Central and East Africa: How to Provide Clean Water and Sanitation by 2030.Environmental health insights · 2025Article
- What Drives Open-air Defecation and How Widespread Is It? A Mixed Methods Study from a Tribal Predominant Block of Jharkhand, India.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social MedicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Public health initiatives aim to decrease infectious diseases by enhancing sanitation, which is their primary goal. The practice of sporadically contaminating the environment with human feces has been around for generations and is embedded in the cultural behavior of villagers in India. This study aimed to estimate the proportion of people with access to latrine facilities and the proportion of people who practice open defecation in the villages of Perambalur, Tamil Nadu. Methodology This community-based, cross-sectional, analytical study was conducted in two rural villages in the Perambalur district for six months. After obtaining approval from the institutional ethics committee, we informed participants about the study's purpose. We conducted the study in selected rural areas and included every single residence in the hamlet, irrespective of whether the residents were permanent or temporary. We did not include families that were not reachable at any point during the survey. A convenient sampling procedure was used to select 330 houses for the study. The lead investigator interviewed one individual from each household, preferably the head of the family. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect the pertinent information. All collected data were entered into Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA), and SPSS software version 21 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used to analyze the results. Results Only around 3.6% of the study participants lived in kutcha households, and about 99.1% of participants identified as Hindu. The proportion of household latrines used was 64.1% among the study participants. Of them, 52.3% engaged in open defecation. Only 4.7% of participants had access to an underground drainage system. Most participants gained knowledge from medical professionals (84.8%). Social media was the second most used source, accounting for about 60.7% of the total. The most frequent reason given for practicing open-air defecation was the perception that constructing restrooms would be expensive (76.3%), while the second most frequent reason was a lack of land (53.4%). An independent t-test found no statistically significant relationship between the availability of household latrines and the number of girls or boys, age, or family income. Compared to those living in semi-pucca and kutcha households, most participants (77.3%) who lived in pucca houses had household latrines. The chi-square test revealed that this proportional difference was statistically significant (p = 0.0001). Conclusions The study participants used household latrines 64.1% of the time. Of the participants, 52.3% engaged in open defecation. The government's initiative to build toilets has only helped a quarter of the population, which needs to be improved. Only 5% of people living in rural areas have access to an underground drainage system. The results of our study provide a justification for the government program's mandate that healthcare practitioners must deliver health education. Therefore, a personalized approach is required to overcome the behavioral barrier among rural people and achieve behavior change.
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.