ArticleBMC public health2026
Household food safety, WASH and environmental health practices in the context of nutrition-sensitive agriculture: a comparative study in Northwest Ethiopia.
Article in BMC public health, 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
backgroundHousehold food safety and Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) are critical for nutrition and infectious disease prevention. This study assessed food safety, WASH, and environmental health practices among beneficiaries of Ethiopia's Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) and Nutrition‑Sensitive Agriculture (NSA) interventions.
methodsA cross‑sectional survey of 586 households in Ebinat and Farta woredas was stratified by intervention status. Data were collected via structured questionnaires. Composite indices were constructed using mean values and Bloom's cut‑off criteria. Binary logistic regression identified predictors of food safety, WASH adequacy, and environmental health.
resultsFood safety practices were poor overall: 74.2% of households reported inadequate practices, and only 9.0% achieved a "good" rating. In contrast, WASH outcomes were stronger, with 59.2% of households classified as adequate and 73.5% among PSNP + NSA participants. Regression analysis showed PSNP + NSA households were nearly three times more likely to report adequate WASH (AOR = 2.95, 95% CI: 1.64-5.31, p < 0.001), while NSA‑only households had even higher odds (AOR = 3.36, 95% CI: 1.30-8.70, p = 0.013). Wealth status was protective: medium‑wealth (AOR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.28-0.71, p = 0.001) and rich households (AOR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24-0.71, p = 0.001) were significantly less likely to report unsafe practices. Maternal literacy improved outcomes (AOR = 2.54, 95% CI: 1.64-3.94, p < 0.001), and frequent Health Extension Worker (HEW) visits further reduced poor practices (AORs = 0.20-0.27, all p < 0.05).
conclusionIntegrated programs were associated with stronger WASH infrastructure, while entrenched food‑handling behaviors remained resistant. Sustainable improvements will require culturally tailored interventions, investment in parental literacy, and practical hygiene demonstrations within multisectoral platforms to bridge the knowledge-practice gap.
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.