Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jul;220(5):906-915.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.05.004. Epub 2017 May 12.

Assessing patterns and determinants of latrine use in rural settings: A longitudinal study in Odisha, India

Affiliations

Assessing patterns and determinants of latrine use in rural settings: A longitudinal study in Odisha, India

Antara Sinha et al. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2017 Jul.

Abstract

Introduction: Monitoring of sanitation programs is often limited to sanitation access and coverage, with little emphasis on use of the facilities despite increasing evidence of widespread non-use.

Objectives: We assessed patterns and determinants of individual latrine use over 12 months in a low- income rural study population that had recently received latrines as part of the Government of India's Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) in coastal Puri district in Odisha, India.

Materials and methods: We surveyed 1938 individuals (>3years) in 310 rural households with latrines from 25 villages over 12 months. Data collection rounds were timed to correspond with the seasons. The primary outcome was reported use by each member of the household over the prior 48h. We classified use into three categories-"never", "sometimes" and "always/usually". We also assessed consistency of use over six days across the three seasons (dry cold, dry hot, rainy). We explored the association between individual and household-level variables and latrine use in any given season and longitudinally using multinomial logistic regression. We also inquired about reasons for non-use.

Results: Overall, latrine use was poor and inconsistent. The average response probability at any given round of never use was 43.5% (95% CI=37.9, 49.1), sometimes use was 4.6% (95% CI=3.8, 5.5), and always/usual use was 51.9% (95% CI=46.2, 57.5). Only two-thirds of those who reported always/usually using a latrine in round one reported the same for all three rounds. Across all three rounds, the study population was about equally divided among those who reported never using the latrine (30.1%, 95% CI=23.0, 37.2), sometimes using the latrine (33.2%, 95% CI=28.3, 38.1) and always/usually using the latrine (36.8%, 95% CI=31.8, 41.8). The reported likelihood of always/usually versus never using the latrine was significantly greater in the dry cold season (OR=1.50, 95% CI=1.18, 1.89, p=0.001) and in the rainy season (OR=1.34, 95% CI=1.07, 1.69, p=0.012), than in the dry hot season. Across all three seasons, there was increased likelihood of always/usually and sometimes using the latrine versus never using it among females and where latrines had a door and roof. Older age groups, including those aged 41-59 years and 60+ years, and increase in household size were associated with a decreased likelihood of always/usually using the latrine versus never using it. The leading reason for non-use was a preference for open defecation.

Conclusion: Results highlight the low and inconsistent use of subsidized latrines built under the TSC in rural Odisha. This study identifies individual and household levels factors that may be used to target behavior change campaigns to drive consistent use of sanitation facilities by all.

Keywords: Consistent use; Determinants; Latrine use; Patterns; Rural; Sanitation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Reported reasons for non-use of latrines among latrine owning households in sample (N = 266).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Arnold B.F., Khush R.S., Ramaswamy P., London A.G., Rajkumar P., Ramaprabha P., Durairaj N., Hubbard A.E., Balakrishnan K., Colford J.M.J. Causal inference methods to study non-randomized, pre-existing development interventions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2010;107:22605–22610. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Banda K., Sarkar R., Gopal S., Govindarajan J., Harijan B.B., Jeyakumar M.B., Mitta P., Sadanala M.E., Selwyn T., Suresh C.R., Thomas V.A., Devadason P., Kumar R., Selvapandian D., Kang G., Balraj V. Water handling, sanitation and defecation practices in rural southern India: a knowledge, attitudes and practices study. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2007;101:1124–1130. - PubMed
    1. Banerjee T., Mandal K. 2011. Revisiting the Midnapore Model After Ten Years of Total Sanitation Campaign in India. (Available at SSRN 1768687)
    1. Barnard S., Routray P., Majorin F., Peletz R., Boisson S., Sinha A., Clasen T. Impact of Indian total sanitation campaign on latrine coverage and use: a cross-sectional study in Orissa three years following programme implementation. PLoS One. 2013;8:e71438. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bartram J., Brocklehurst C., Fisher M.B., Luyendijk R., Hossain R., Wardlaw T., Gordon B. Global monitoring of water supply and sanitation: history, methods and future challenges. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2014;11:8137–8165. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types