Open defecation and childhood stunting in India: an ecological analysis of new data from 112 districts.

Poor sanitation remains a major public health concern linked to several important health outcomes; emerging evidence indicates a link to childhood stunting. In India over half of the population defecates in the open; the prevalence of stunting remains very high. Recently published data on levels of stunting in 112 districts of India provide an opportunity to explore the relationship between levels of open defecation and stunting within this population. We conducted an ecological regression analysis to assess the association between the prevalence of open defecation and stunting after adjustment for potential confounding factors. Data from the 2011 HUNGaMA survey was used for the outcome of interest, stunting; data from the 2011 Indian Census for the same districts was used for the exposure of interest, open defecation. After adjustment for various potential confounding factors--including socio-economic status, maternal education and calorie availability--a 10 percent increase in open defecation was associated with a 0.7 percentage point increase in both stunting and severe stunting. Differences in open defecation can statistically account for 35 to 55 percent of the average difference in stunting between districts identified as low-performing and high-performing in the HUNGaMA data. In addition, using a Monte Carlo simulation, we explored the effect on statistical power of the common practice of dichotomizing continuous height data into binary stunting indicators. Our simulation showed that dichotomization of height sacrifices statistical power, suggesting that our estimate of the association between open defecation and stunting may be a lower bound. Whilst our analysis is ecological and therefore vulnerable to residual confounding, these findings use the most recently collected large-scale data from India to add to a growing body of suggestive evidence for an effect of poor sanitation on human growth. New intervention studies, currently underway, may shed more light on this important issue

Can working with the private for-profit sector improve utilization of quality health services by the poor? A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND: There has been a growing interest in the role of the private for-profit sector in health service provision in low- and middle-income countries. The private sector represents an important source of care for all socioeconomic groups, including the poorest and substantial concerns have been raised about the quality of care it provides. Interventions have been developed to address these technical failures and simultaneously take advantage of the potential for involving private providers to achieve public health goals. Limited information is available on the extent to which these interventions have successfully expanded access to quality health services for poor and disadvantaged populations. This paper addresses this knowledge gap by presenting the results of a systematic literature review on the effectiveness of working with private for-profit providers to reach the poor. METHODS: The search topic of the systematic literature review was the effectiveness of interventions working with the private for-profit sector to improve utilization of quality health services by the poor. Interventions included social marketing, use of vouchers, pre-packaging of drugs, franchising, training, regulation, accreditation and contracting-out. The search for published literature used a series of electronic databases including PubMed, Popline, HMIC and CabHealth Global Health. The search for grey and unpublished literature used documents available on the World Wide Web. We focused on studies which evaluated the impact of interventions on utilization and/or quality of services and which provided information on the socioeconomic status of the beneficiary populations. RESULTS: A total of 2483 references were retrieved, of which 52 qualified as impact evaluations. Data were available on the average socioeconomic status of recipient communities for 5 interventions, and on the distribution of benefits across socioeconomic groups for 5 interventions. CONCLUSION: Few studies provided evidence on the impact of private sector interventions on quality and/or utilization of care by the poor. It was, however, evident that many interventions have worked successfully in poor communities and positive equity impacts can be inferred from interventions that work with types of providers predominantly used by poor people. Better evidence of the equity impact of interventions working with the private sector is needed for more robust conclusions to be drawn