-
Social Science & Medicine (1982) Dec 2017Sanitation is a human right that benefits health. As such, technical and behavioural interventions are widely implemented to increase the number of people using... (Review)
Review
Sanitation is a human right that benefits health. As such, technical and behavioural interventions are widely implemented to increase the number of people using sanitation facilities. These include sanitation marketing interventions (SMIs), in which external support agencies (ESAs) use a hybrid of commercial and social marketing tools to increase supply of, and demand for, sanitation products and services. However, there is little critical discourse on SMIs, or independent rigorous analysis on whether they increase or reduce well-being. Most available information is from ESAs about their own SMI implementation. We systematically reviewed the grey and peer-reviewed literature on sanitation marketing, including qualitatively analysing and calculating descriptive statistics for the parameters measured, or intended to be measured, in publications reporting on 33 SMIs. Guided by the capability approach to development we identified that publications for most SMIs (n = 31, 94%) reported on commodities, whilst fewer reported on parameters related to impacts on well-being (i.e., functionings, n = 22, 67%, and capabilities, n = 20, 61%). When evaluating future SMIs, it may be useful to develop a list of contextualised well-being indicators for the particular SMI's location, taking into account local cultural norms, with this list ideally co-produced with local stakeholders. We identified two common practices in SMIs that can reduce well-being and widen well-being inequalities; namely, the promotion of conspicuous consumption and assaults on dignity, and we discuss the mechanisms by which such impacts occur. We recommend that ESAs understand sanitation marketing's potential to reduce well-being and design SMIs to minimize such detrimental impacts. Throughout the implementation phase ESAs should continuously monitor for well-being impacts and adapt practices to optimise well-being outcomes for all involved.
Topics: Developing Countries; Humans; Marketing; Sanitation; Social Marketing
PubMed: 29100137
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.10.021 -
International Journal of Environmental... Dec 2019Three of four recent major sanitation intervention trials found no effect on diarrhea. These results conflicted with longstanding beliefs from decades of literature. To... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Three of four recent major sanitation intervention trials found no effect on diarrhea. These results conflicted with longstanding beliefs from decades of literature. To understand this discordance, we placed recent trials into the historical context that preceded them in two ways. First, we evaluated the history of published literature reviews on sanitation and diarrhea. Second, we conducted meta-analyses on studies from the most recent systematic review to uncover features that predict effectiveness. We found that 13 literature reviews dating to 1983 consistently estimated a significant protective effect of sanitation against diarrhea. However, these were marred by flawed studies and inappropriately averaged effects across widely heterogeneous interventions and contexts. Our meta-analyses highlight that the overall effect of sanitation on diarrhea was largely driven by sewerage and interventions that improved more than sanitation alone. There is no true overall effect of sanitation because variability between intervention types and implementation contexts is too complex to average. Ultimately, the null effects of recent latrine interventions are not surprising. Instead, the one trial that found a strong relative reduction in diarrhea is the historical outlier. The development of transformative sanitation interventions requires a better understanding of the social and environmental contexts that determine intervention effectiveness.
Topics: Diarrhea; Humans; Research Design; Review Literature as Topic; Sanitation; Sewage; Toilet Facilities; Water Supply
PubMed: 31905628
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17010230 -
International Journal of Hygiene and... Apr 2017An estimated 2.4 billion people still lack access to improved sanitation and 946 million still practice open defecation. The World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
An estimated 2.4 billion people still lack access to improved sanitation and 946 million still practice open defecation. The World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned this review to assess the impact of sanitation on coverage and use, as part of its effort to develop a set of guidelines on sanitation and health.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We systematically reviewed the literature and used meta-analysis to quantitatively characterize how different sanitation interventions impact latrine coverage and use. We also assessed both qualitative and quantitative studies to understand how different structural and design characteristics of sanitation are associated with individual latrine use. A total of 64 studies met our eligibility criteria. Of 27 intervention studies that reported on household latrine coverage and provided a point estimate with confidence interval, the average increase in coverage was 14% (95% CI: 10%, 19%). The intervention types with the largest absolute increases in coverage included the Indian government's "Total Sanitation Campaign" (27%; 95% CI: 14%, 39%), latrine subsidy/provision interventions (16%; 95% CI: 8%, 24%), latrine subsidy/provision interventions that also incorporated education components (17%; 95% CI: -5%, 38%), sewerage interventions (14%; 95% CI: 1%, 28%), sanitation education interventions (14%; 95% CI: 3%, 26%), and community-led total sanitation interventions (12%; 95% CI: -2%, 27%). Of 10 intervention studies that reported on household latrine use, the average increase was 13% (95% CI: 4%, 21%). The sanitation interventions and contexts in which they were implemented varied, leading to high heterogeneity across studies. We found 24 studies that examined the association between structural and design characteristics of sanitation facilities and facility use. These studies reported that better maintenance, accessibility, privacy, facility type, cleanliness, newer latrines, and better hygiene access were all frequently associated with higher use, whereas poorer sanitation conditions were associated with lower use.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicate that most sanitation interventions only had a modest impact on increasing latrine coverage and use. A further understanding of how different sanitation characteristics and sanitation interventions impact coverage and use is essential in order to more effectively attain sanitation access for all, eliminate open defecation, and ultimately improve health.
Topics: Humans; India; Sanitation; Toilet Facilities
PubMed: 27825597
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2016.10.001 -
PloS One 2014More than 761 million people rely on shared sanitation facilities. These have historically been excluded from international sanitation targets, regardless of the service... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
More than 761 million people rely on shared sanitation facilities. These have historically been excluded from international sanitation targets, regardless of the service level, due to concerns about acceptability, hygiene and access. In connection with a proposed change in such policy, we undertook this review to identify and summarize existing evidence that compares health outcomes associated with shared sanitation versus individual household latrines.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Shared sanitation included any type of facilities intended for the containment of human faeces and used by more than one household, but excluded public facilities. Health outcomes included diarrhoea, helminth infections, enteric fevers, other faecal-oral diseases, trachoma and adverse maternal or birth outcomes. Studies were included regardless of design, location, language or publication status. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using the STROBE guidelines. Twenty-two studies conducted in 21 countries met the inclusion criteria. Studies show a pattern of increased risk of adverse health outcomes associated with shared sanitation compared to individual household latrines. A meta-analysis of 12 studies reporting on diarrhoea found increased odds of disease associated with reliance on shared sanitation (odds ratio (OR) 1.44, 95% CI: 1.18-1.76).
CONCLUSION
Evidence to date does not support a change of existing policy of excluding shared sanitation from the definition of improved sanitation used in international monitoring and targets. However, such evidence is limited, does not adequately address likely confounding, and does not identify potentially important distinctions among types of shared facilities. As reliance on shared sanitation is increasing, further research is necessary to determine the circumstances, if any, under which shared sanitation can offer a safe, appropriate and acceptable alternative to individual household latrines.
Topics: Health Status; Housing; Humans; Sanitation; Toilet Facilities
PubMed: 24743336
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093300 -
International Journal of Hygiene and... Jul 2022Rural and peri-urban communities in developing countries rely on sanitation systems which are often unsafely managed. One of the major barriers to assess safely managed... (Review)
Review
Rural and peri-urban communities in developing countries rely on sanitation systems which are often unsafely managed. One of the major barriers to assess safely managed sanitation is a lack of data about the existing sanitation infrastructure and levels of containment safety. The aim was to review rural and peri-urban on-site sanitation studies in order to understand different infrastructure types, associated management practices and any impacts on human health. The scope was limited to South-East Asia and Western Pacific regions in order to better identify regional inequalities. Among the 155 reviewed articles, 73 studies (47%) linked sanitation infrastructure to poor human health. Nearly all articles reported latrine ownership (n = 149, 96%) while sanitation infrastructure types were covered less frequently (n = 104, 67%). In particular, there was a lack of published literature describing back-end characteristics (dimension and materials) (n = 12, 8%) and/or management practices (n = 4, 3%). This stems from a limited application of research methodologies that characterise sanitation infrastructure and faecal sludge management (containment, emptying and on-site treatment). Inequality between regions was prevalent with three quarters of the studies on latrine back-end infrastructure from Bangladesh and India in South-East Asia. A strategic research approach is needed to address the current knowledge gaps regarding sanitation infrastructure and safe faecal sludge management.
Topics: Asia, Eastern; Humans; Rural Population; Sanitation; Sewage; Toilet Facilities
PubMed: 35752101
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2022.113992 -
International Journal of Hygiene and... Mar 2018Unsafe management of human faecal waste represents a major risk for public health, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Efforts to improve sanitation... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Unsafe management of human faecal waste represents a major risk for public health, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Efforts to improve sanitation conditions are considerably sensitive to contextual specifics of natural and social environments. This review operationalises, analyses, and synthesises evidence of how contextual factors and motivations affect different sanitation outcomes with a specific focus on community approaches to rural sanitation.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We operationalised contextual factors and motivations as determinants that influence sanitation conditions independently of the examined intervention. We conducted a systematic search of both peer-reviewed and grey literature with no restriction on the methods After screening the titles and abstracts of 19,198 records obtained through initial searches, we scrutinised the full content of 621 studies for relevance. While 102 of these studies qualified to be assessed for risk of bias and information content, ultimately, just 40 studies met our eligibility criteria. Of these 40 studies from 16 countries, 26 analysed specific interventions and 14 were non-interventional. None of the experimental studies reported the effects of contextual factors or motivations as operationalised in this study and only observational evidence was thus used in our review. We found that sanitation interventions are typically seen as the principal vehicles of change, the main instruments to fix 'deviant' behaviour or ensure access to infrastructure. The programmatic focus of this study on sanitation determinants that act independently of specific interventions questions this narrow understanding of sanitation dynamics. We identified 613 unique observations of quantitatively or qualitatively established relationships between certain contextual factors or motivations and 12 different types of sanitation outcomes. The sanitation determinants were classified into 77 typologically similar groups clustered into 12 broader types and descriptively characterised. We developed a graphical synthesis of evidence in the form of a network model referred to as the sanitation nexus. The sanitation nexus depicts how different groups of determinants interlink different sanitation outcomes. It provides an empirically derived conceptual model of sanitation with an aggregate structure indicating similarities and dissimilarities between sanitation outcomes with respect to how their sets of underlying determinants overlap.
CONCLUSION
This study challenged the understanding of context as merely something that should be controlled for. Factors that affect targeted outcomes independently of the analysed interventions should be scrutinised and reported. This particularly applies to interventions involving complex human-environment interactions where generalisability is necessarily indirect. We presented a novel approach to comprehending the contextual factors and motivations which influence sanitation outcomes. Our approach can be analogously applied when mapping and organising underlying drivers in other areas of public and environmental health. The sanitation nexus derived in this study is designed to inform practitioners and researchers about sanitation determinants and the outcomes they influence.
Topics: Developing Countries; Humans; Motivation; Public Health; Rural Population; Sanitation; Socioeconomic Factors; Waste Management
PubMed: 29133138
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.10.018 -
American Journal of Public Health Oct 2020To estimate the population lacking at least basic water and sanitation access in the urban United States. We compared national estimates of water and sanitation access...
To estimate the population lacking at least basic water and sanitation access in the urban United States. We compared national estimates of water and sanitation access from the World Health Organization/United Nations Children's Fund Joint Monitoring Program with estimates from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development on homelessness and the American Community Survey on household water and sanitation facilities. We estimated that at least 930 000 persons in US cities lacked sustained access to at least basic sanitation and 610 000 to at least basic water access, as defined by the United Nations. After accounting for those experiencing homelessness and substandard housing, our estimate of people lacking at least basic water equaled current estimates (n = 610 000)-without considering water quality-and greatly exceeded estimates of sanitation access (n = 28 000). Methods to estimate water and sanitation access in the United States should include people experiencing homelessness and other low-income groups, and specific policies are needed to reduce disparities in urban sanitation. We recommend similar estimation efforts for other high-income countries currently reported as having near universal sanitation access.
Topics: Drinking Water; Humans; Poverty; Public Health; Sanitation; United States; Urban Population; Water Supply
PubMed: 32816545
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305833 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jan 2007
Topics: Communicable Disease Control; History, 19th Century; History, 20th Century; Humans; Infections; Sanitation; Water Supply
PubMed: 17204757
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39044.508646.94 -
Biotechnology Advances 2012Poor sanitation in urban slums results in increased prevalence of diseases and pollution of the environment. Excreta, grey water and solid wastes are the major... (Review)
Review
Poor sanitation in urban slums results in increased prevalence of diseases and pollution of the environment. Excreta, grey water and solid wastes are the major contributors to the pollution load into the slum environment and pose a risk to public health. The high rates of urbanization and population growth, poor accessibility and lack of legal status in urban slums make it difficult to improve their level of sanitation. New approaches may help to achieve the sanitation target of the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 7; ensuring environmental sustainability. This paper reviews the characteristics of waste streams and the potential treatment processes and technologies that can be adopted and applied in urban slums in a sustainable way. Resource recovery oriented technologies minimise health risks and negative environmental impacts. In particular, there has been increasing recognition of the potential of anaerobic co-digestion for treatment of excreta and organic solid waste for energy recovery as an alternative to composting. Soil and sand filters have also been found suitable for removal of organic matter, pathogens, nutrients and micro-pollutants from grey water.
Topics: Cities; Conservation of Natural Resources; Poverty Areas; Sanitation; Waste Disposal, Fluid; Water Purification
PubMed: 22361648
DOI: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.02.007 -
International Journal of Hygiene and... May 2023Open-defecation (OD) is one of the most widespread sanitation practices in low-income countries. This practice often causes diarrheal diseases and 760,000 deaths per... (Review)
Review
Review of the slippage factors from open defecation-free (ODF) status towards open defecation (OD) after the Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach implementation.
Open-defecation (OD) is one of the most widespread sanitation practices in low-income countries. This practice often causes diarrheal diseases and 760,000 deaths per year. To eradicate OD, several approaches have been developed, including Community-Led-Total Sanitation (CLTS) which is a participatory and community approach. The specificity of CLTS is that it is managed by the community itself, as its name implies, and that no subsidies or financial contributions from outside the community are used in the construction of the facilities. Although, the CLTS is effective in the short-term for eradicating OD, the long-term results are not encouraging: Open-Defecation-Free (ODF) communities revert to OD or partially use latrines. The present research is based on literature review and authors investigation in Burkina Faso. It was conducted to provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors that affect the sustainability of ODF-status leading to slippage in communities. It was found that these factors can be grouped into five categories: behavioral and social, technological, organizational, and vulnerability factors. The last one, socio-political factors, is a contribution from the authors as it was not reported in the literature yet. The authors have proposed graphical synthesis of all the slippage factors and their associated categories in the ODF-communities. Finally, authors have suggested that to sustain ODF-status of communities: include all stages of the sanitation value chain (SVC) in the CLTS, the follow-up activities after achieving ODF-status must be planned well in advance, sanitation marketing should be developed and the sanctions against the practice of OD have to be reinforced. Governments and donors should pay particular attention to the following options: raising awareness and regular monitoring after ODF certification, encouraging research on sustainable and pro-poor sanitation technologies, and building the capacity of implementing actors including facilitators. While obtaining ODF status is materialized by a sign with the status on it, this paper drew the attention of CLTS implementers to the lack of materialization of slippage when it occurs, and the absence of studies on the evolution of the community sanitation scale after ODF-status.
Topics: Humans; Sanitation; Rural Population; Toilet Facilities; Risk Factors; Diarrhea
PubMed: 36958189
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2023.114160