ArticleMaternal and child health journal2024
Associations between Shared Sanitation, Stunting and Diarrhoea in Low-Income, High Density Urban Neighbourhoods of Maputo, Mozambique - a Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Association between water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) practices and childhood stunting in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Enteric pathogens in soil adjacent to public waste bins in Maputo, Mozambique offers potential for environmental surveillance.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Water Matters More: Unequal Effects of Water and Sanitation on Child Growth in Mozambique.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The accuracy of a novel stunting risk detection application based on nutrition and sanitation indicators in children aged under five years.BMC nutrition · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionShared sanitation facilities are used by over 500 million people around the world. Most research evidence indicates that shared sanitation conveys higher risk than household sanitation for many adverse health outcomes. However, studies often fail to account for variation between different types of shared facilities. As informal housing development outpaces sanitation infrastructure, it is imperative to understand which components of shared facilities may mitigate the health risks of shared sanitation use.
methodsThis cross-sectional study determines whether sanitation improvement or compound hygiene were associated with stunting or diarrhoeal prevalence in children under five living in Maputo, Mozambique who rely on shared sanitation facilities. The study uses logistic and linear multivariable regression analysis to search for associations and control for potential confounding factors.
results346 children (43.9%) in the study population were stunted. Each unit increase in sanitation score was associated with an approximate decrease of 22% in the odds of stunting (OR: 0.78, CI: 0.66, 0.92), and an increase in height of 0.23 height-for-age z-scores (CI: 0.10, 0.36). There was no evidence that the compound hygiene score was associated with height as measured by stunting (OR: 1.05, CI: 0.87, 1.26) or z-score (-0.06, CI: -0.21, 0.09). Neither sanitation nor compound hygiene score were associated with diarrhoea in the population.
conclusionsUse of an improved shared latrine is associated with decreased odds of stunting. There is no evidence of an association between latrine improvement and diarrhoea. Further investigation is necessary to isolate attributes of shared sanitation facilities that may reduce health risks.
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.