ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Who participates in 'participatory design' of WASH infrastructure: A mixed-methods process evaluation.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. 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.
- Conducting process evaluations of WASH interventions: a scoping review of design approaches and indicators in low- and middle-income countries.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Implementing a climate-resilient and inclusive WASH guidance in Indonesia: A mixed-methods case study.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Inclusive participation is critical for community-based water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions, especially in complex environments such as urban informal settlements. We conducted a mixed-methods, theory-driven process evaluation to evaluate participation, barriers to participation, and participant satisfaction within the Revitalising Informal Settlements and their Environments (RISE) trial in Makassar, Indonesia and Suva, Fiji (ACTRN12618000633280; https://www.anzctr.org.au/). RISE conducted participatory design activities, including community-level design workshops and household visits, to co-design WASH infrastructure. Household surveys, conducted with women and men after RISE participatory design in Makassar (N = 320) and Suva (N = 503), captured self-reported participation in RISE activities and satisfaction with influence over RISE decision-making. We used logistic regression models to assess socio-demographic predictors of participation and satisfaction. Qualitative data were also collected after participatory design and analyzed thematically. Most respondents from Makassar (89%) and Suva (75%) participated in at least one RISE activity. Statistically significant predictors of participation included gender, age, and marital status in Makassar and disability status and education in Suva. Most participants in Makassar (66%) and Suva (70%) were satisfied with their level of influence over RISE decision-making. In Makassar, no significant predictors of satisfaction were identified. In Suva, significant predictors of satisfaction included gender, religion, and marital status, with women wanting more influence and religious minorities and unmarried participants wanting less influence over decisions. Qualitative data showed that most participants felt satisfied by RISE's inclusive and participatory design, although some residents reported distrust with RISE and feeling excluded from activities by community representatives. While RISE participatory design activities achieved good reach and satisfaction overall, we identified specific gender and social inequities in participation and influence over decision-making. We recommend that WASH interventions reflect on the quality of their engagement with communities and local organizations in order to identify and appropriately include groups of interest.
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.