ArticlePloS one2025
Household perceptions, practices, and experiences with real-world alternating dual-pit latrines treated with storage and lime in rural Cambodia.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Achieving universal safely managed sanitation (SMS) is an ambitious long-term goal in resource-limited rural areas. The non-governmental organization, iDE, introduced the alternating dual-pit latrine (ADP), which treats fecal sludge (FS) on-site using storage and lime to increase SMS in rural Cambodia. However, SMS via ADPs requires adherence to recommended practices (e.g., how and when to switch between pits). We surveyed 765 rural households with ADPs across five of 25 Cambodian provinces to understand how real-world household sanitation practices and knowledge affect and are related to adherence to recommended practices at scale. We calculated summary statistics of household survey responses and used regression models of composite indices to describe how households' practices and attitudes related to ADPs affect adherence to recommended ADP practices. By 24 months after training, three in five households did not recall how long treatment must proceed until emptying can be performed safely. No household waited the recommended two years to empty their pits. While households appreciated the advantages of owning an ADP (e.g., reduced costs and required land area compared to single-pit latrines over time), no household followed recommended treatment practices. This lack of adherence could have health and environmental implications for households using ADPs. Household practices also varied by province, flood proneness, and education level, adding complexity to how to improve adherence; for example, having at least one household member that completed formal education surprisingly reduced compliance with recommended ADP practices. Household behaviors impact the use and maintenance of on-site sanitation systems in rural areas, with proper adherence is necessary to achieve sustained SMS. Increased access to affordable and safe emptying service providers could enable households to manage the pits of their ADPs and dispose of FS in-situ according to treatment duration, while also ensuring that household practices in operating on-site sanitation systems are integrated into the design, installation, and SMS monitoring of such systems.
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.