ArticleScientific reports2026
Perceived versus measured drinking water quality in rural West Bengal, India: a comparative cross-sectional mixed-method case study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Access to safe drinking water remains a critical public health challenge in many parts of rural India. People's perceptions of water quality, often based on sensory cues, may not align with laboratory evidence, leading to gaps in protective behaviour. This study examines the divergence between perceived and measured water quality in a southern district of West Bengal. A mixed-method study was conducted in four villages of North 24 Parganas. The villages were selected based on computed Water Quality Index based on government data, and the study followed a comparative cross-sectional design. Quantitative data were collected from 521 individuals across 120 households via a semi-structured questionnaire on background characteristics, water sources, water related perceptions treatment practices, and reported health outcomes. Household water samples were tested in a science laboratory to measure physicochemical and microbial parameters. Quantitative analysis included univariate and bivariate statistics and logistic regression, while 16 in-depth interviews explored water related perceptions, health experiences, and willingness to pay for safe water. Laboratory analysis showed that 64% of the households consumed poor-quality drinking water, with fluoride (76%) and arsenic (65%) exceeding permissible limits. A clear perception-measured gap was observed, confirmed by McNemar's test (χ² = 12.25, p < 0.001). Misperception was higher among households with limited awareness of contamination, lack of treatment practices, and greater distance from water sources. Health risks were diverse, including self-reported gastrointestinal illnesses and respiratory symptoms. While many households expressed willingness to pay USD 0.16 to USD 3.20 per month for safe drinking water, affordability remained a barrier for many households. There is an urgent need for context-specific risk communication, continuous water quality monitoring and displaying such levels, and providing affordable and safe water delivery systems in rural West Bengal.
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.