Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37754603›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023

Excreta Disgust and Adaptive Use of Ecological Sanitation By-Products: Perspectives of Rural Farmers in Burera District, Rwanda.

Celestin Banamwana, David Musoke, Theoneste Ntakirutimana, Esther Buregyeya, John Ssempebwa, Gakenia Wamuyu-Maina, Nazarius M Tumwesigye

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 50% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Celestin BanamwanaDepartment of Environmental Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Rwanda, Kigali P.O. Box 3286, Rwanda.ORCID 0000-0002-2817-2926
David MusokeDepartment of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala P.O. Box 7072, Uganda.ORCID 0000-0003-3262-3918
Theoneste NtakirutimanaDepartment of Environmental Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Rwanda, Kigali P.O. Box 3286, Rwanda.
Esther BuregyeyaDepartment of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala P.O. Box 7072, Uganda.ORCID 0000-0002-4410-8027
John SsempebwaDepartment of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala P.O. Box 7072, Uganda.
Gakenia Wamuyu-MainaDepartment of Community Health and Behavioural Sciences, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala P.O. Box 7072, Uganda.
Nazarius M TumwesigyeDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala P.O. Box 7072, Uganda.ORCID 0000-0001-7085-8780
Makerere University · UGUniversity of Rwanda · RW

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 107768/Z/15/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ecological sanitation (Ecosan) by-products are inherently limited in their potential use as excreta resources. Disgust behind human excreta and derivatives continues to challenge the further use of Ecosan-by products. Although treated excreta, including Ecosan by-products, have gradually been adopted worldwide, diverse perspectives among users hinder their use in agro-practices. This study explored perceptions of the use of Ecosan-by products as relates to the disgust of human excreta among rural farmers in Burera district, Rwanda. A qualitative study was conducted amongst three farmers' cooperatives using Ecosan by-products. We conducted six focus group discussions (FDGs) comprising a total of 48 participants taking into account the following three themes: core excreta disgust, perceived waste, and perceived resource. Thematic analysis was conducted with similar perspectives identified and grouped under emerging sub-themes. The perspectives regarding disgust elicitors included stigma, eversion, phobia, taboos, and health risks. Ecosan by-products were largely perceived as useful, with most farmers trusting and willing to touch the by-products. Psychosocial barriers to using the by-products continued to slow down the adoption of Ecosan for agricultural options. There is a need for increased awareness to scale up the use of Ecosan coupled with effective treatment practices for the products so as to reverse the psychological barriers resulting from traditional excreta disgust over Ecosan-products of faeces and urine.

Indexed as

DisgustSanitationAgricultureFarmersHumansRwandaby-productdisgustEcosanexcretafarmersresourcesanitationwaste

Identifiers

PMID37754603
PMCPMC10530874
OpenAlexW4386639422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.