ArticlePloS one2025
Effect of community-led total sanitation on open defecation in Uganda: A propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A substantial proportion (7%) of people in Uganda practice open defecation. A Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) project was started in 2011 to reduce indiscriminate disposal of excreta but the effect has not been rigorously evaluated. We, therefore, evaluated the effect of CLTS on reducing open defecation in the program intervention districts in Uganda. We used the 2016 Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (UDHS) data to conduct a quasi-experimental study using a propensity score matching (PSM) approach. The intervention group consisted of districts that implemented the CLTS and the comparison group were districts that did not implement the CLTS. We matched the intervention and comparison groups on several covariates in a 1:1 ratio within a caliper of 20% of the standard deviation of the propensity score. We confirmed balance in covariates using standardized mean difference (SMD) being <0.1 or 10%. We applied a conditional logit regression model on the matched dataset adjusting for matched pairs to estimate the intervention effect, reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the robustness of the estimate using Mantel-Haenszel sensitivity analysis. There were 17,415 participants (4,373 intervention vs. 13,042 comparison) before PSM and 8,470 participants (4,235 comparison vs. 4,235 intervention) after PSM. In the unmatched weighted dataset, 5.4% of participants had open defecation (7.9% intervention vs. 4.6% comparison). In the matched weighted data, open defecation was 9.3% and 7.6% in the comparison and intervention groups, respectively. Results show that CLTS reduced the prevalence of open defecation by 37% (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0-54-0.74) and this finding is robust to unmeasured confounders (Gamma = 1.35, p = 0.052). We recommend the scale-up of CLTS to the remaining districts by the Government of Uganda to reduce open defecation.
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.