ArticleBMJ public health2025
Household ownership of latrines does not ensure use: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ public health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to conduct a scoping review of the factors associated with latrine utilisation by households. Design: We performed a scoping review to determine the factors associated with household latrine utilisation. Data sources: We conducted a bibliographic search using PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Epistemonikos and Semantic Scholar until April 2023. Eligibility criteria: The papers we included met the following criteria: the study population included members of households equipped with latrines, regardless of their status, excluding children under five; the study followed an observational design; the study design was quantitative; the manuscript was in either French or English; the study focused on factors associated with latrine utilisation; the study employed multivariate methods and the study manuscript was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Data extraction and synthesis: We conducted a narrative synthesis of key results. Results: This review selected 31 articles. The percentage of latrine utilisation spanned from 36.00% to 94.30%. Elderly individuals and those with lower educational attainment showed reduced latrine utilisation compared with younger and more educated people, respectively. Households without school-going children, those of larger size and those with lower economic status had less latrine utilisation than those with school-going children, smaller size and a higher wealth index. Some latrine attributes (age, level of household member involvement in construction, hand hygiene facilities, geographical accessibility, functionality, maintenance, cleanliness, type, superstructure, condition, etc) influenced latrine utilisation. Exposure to sanitation communication initiatives heightened the likelihood of latrine utilisation by individuals. Conclusion: The study stresses the importance of improving children's education and implementing poverty reduction initiatives to enable households to afford adequate sanitation facilities. It also suggests empowering communities to build suitable latrines, promoting community-based sanitation models and emphasising the need to raise awareness of the adverse effects of open defecation through educational campaigns.
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.