ArticlePloS one2023
Exploring associations between household environmental factors and handwashing with essential agents in sub-Saharan Africa.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Replacing Text with Pictures for Multi-Lingual Health Education: Meeting the Needs of a Community with Low Literacy in Tanzania.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Childhood diarrhoeal disease in South Asian countries: a population-based analysis.BMJ public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background3 billion people lack proper home hand hygiene facilities globally. Of these, 1.4 billion (18%) lack soap or water, while 1.6 billion (22%) have neither. This analysis explores the link between living conditions and the use of essential agents in sub-Saharan Africa. This secondary data analysis examines potential associations between the domiciliary environment and the use of essential agents in sub-Saharan Africa.
methodsEighteen demographic and health surveys were used to analyze the association between household environmental factors and handwashing with essential agents. STATA version 16 was used to analyze data from 203,311 households across weighted samples. Using a multivariable multilevel mixed effect logistic regression analysis, it was possible to determine how each independent factor affected the outcome while taking the data clustering into account. The adjusted odds ratio and its associated 95% confidence interval were used to assess the independent factors' statistical significance.
resultOnly one in three households 34.84%, practiced handwashing with essential agents, with the highest prevalence in Angola (70.2%) and the lowest in Malawi (6.5%). Educational status [aOR = 1.77; 95%(CI = 1.68-1.86)], female headship[aOR = 1.09; 95%(CI = 1.06-1.2)], household wealth[aOR = 4.08; 95%(CI = 3.84-4.33)], not sharing toilets with other homes[aOR = 1.13; 95%(CI = 1.10-1.17)], having a fixed place for hand washing[aOR = 1.49; 95%(CI = 1.45-1.54)], not having regular access to water [aOR = 0.09; 95%(CI = 0.095-0.10)]and being a rural resident [aOR = 0.85; 95%(CI = 0.82-0.88)] were associated with handwashing.
conclusionsub-Saharan nations are failing to demonstrate advancements in handwashing practices. There are still a lot of homes without access to basic infrastructure for handwashing and household water sources. For essential agent adoption programs to be successful in an environment with limited resources, Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene measures must be implemented. Furthermore, it is critical to include contextual factors from the current study as well as socio-cultural and psychological characteristics that dissuade people from using essential agents in intervention strategies.
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.