ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023
The Status of Sanitation in Malawi: Is SDG6.2 Achievable?
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Water source, latrine type, and rainfall are associated with detection of non-optimal and enteric bacteria in the vaginal microbiome: a prospective observational cohort study nested within a cluster randomized controlled trial.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Observational
- Effects of tropical cyclone Freddy on the social determinants of health: the narrative review of the experience in Malawi.BMJ public health · 2024Review
- Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ensuring access to adequate and equitable sanitation and ending open defecation by 2030 is the focus of Sustainable Development Goal 6.2 (SDG6.2). We evaluated Malawi's progress towards SDG 6.2 (specifically the goal to end open defecation), presenting the results of a national survey of over 200,000 sanitary facilities and evaluating their management. Based on non-linear population dynamics, we used a linear model to evaluate the reduction in open defecation between 1992-2018, and to project whether Malawi can meet the SDG target to end open defecation by 2030 under multiple scenarios of population growth. Whilst Malawi has made considerable progress in providing sanitary provision for the population, we estimate that, at the current rate of the provision of sanitary facilities, Malawi will not reach SDG 6.2 by 2030 under any of the modelled socioeconomic scenarios. Furthermore, we compare the estimates of the extent of sanitary provision classed as improved from multiple surveys, including the USAID Demographic and Health (DHS) Surveys and Government of Malawi Census data. We conclude that some of the surveys (particularly the 2015/16 DHS) may be overestimating the level of improved sanitary provision, and we hypothesize that this is due to how pit-latrines with earth/sand slabs are classed. Furthermore, we examine the long-term sustainability of pit-latrine use, investigating the challenge of pit-latrine abandonment and identifying pit-latrine filling as a cause of the abandonment in 30.2% of cases. We estimate that between 2020-2070, 31.8 (range 2.8 to 3320) million pit-latrines will be filled and abandoned, representing a major challenge for the safe management of abandoned latrines, a potential for long-term impacts on the groundwater quality, and a significant loss of investment in sanitary infrastructure. For Malawi to reach SDG 6.2, improvements are needed in both the quantity and quality of its sanitary facilities.
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.