Shared Sanitation Versus Individual Household Latrines in Urban Slums: A Cross-Sectional Study in Orissa, India.

A large and growing proportion of the global population rely on shared sanitation facilities despite evidence of a potential increased risk of adverse health outcomes compared with individual household latrines (IHLs). We sought to explore differences between households relying on shared sanitation versus IHLs in terms of demographics, sanitation facilities, and fecal exposure. We surveyed 570 households from 30 slums in Orissa, India, to obtain data on demographics, water, sanitation, and hygiene. Latrine spot-checks were conducted to collect data on indicators of use, privacy, and cleanliness. We collected samples of drinking water and hand rinses to assess fecal contamination. Households relying on shared sanitation were poorer and less educated than those accessing IHLs. Individuals in sharing households were more likely to practice open defecation. Shared facilities were less likely to be functional, less clean, and more likely to have feces and flies. No differences in fecal contamination of drinking water or hand-rinse samples were found. Important differences exist among households accessing shared facilities versus IHLs that may partly explain the apparent adverse health outcomes associated with shared sanitation. As these factors may capture differences in risk and promote sanitary improvements, they should be considered in future policy

Women's role in sanitation decision making in rural coastal Odisha, India.

BACKGROUND: While women and girls face special risks from lack of access to sanitation facilities, their ability to participate and influence household-level sanitation is not well understood. This paper examines the association between women's decision-making autonomy and latrine construction in rural areas of Odisha, India. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-method study among rural households in Puri district. This included a cross sectional survey among 475 randomly selected households. These were classified as either having a functional latrine, a non-functional latrine or no latrine at all. We also conducted 17 in-depth interviews and 9 focus group discussions among household members of these three categories of households. RESULTS: Decisions on the construction of household level sanitation facilities were made exclusively by the male head in 80% of households; in 11% the decision was made by men who consulted or otherwise involved women. In only 9% of households the decision was made by women. Households where women were more involved in general decision making processes were no more likely to build a latrine, compared to households where they were excluded from decisions. Qualitative research revealed that women's non-involvement in sanitation decision making is attributed to their low socio-economic status and inability to influence the household's financial decisions. Female heads lacked confidence to take decisions independently, and were dependent on their spouse or other male family members for most decisions. The study revealed the existence of power hierarchies and dynamics within households, which constrained female's participation in decision-making processes regarding sanitation. CONCLUSIONS: Though governments and implementers emphasize women's involvement in sanitation programmes, socio-cultural factors and community and household level dynamics often prevent women from participating in sanitation-related decisions. Measures are needed for strengthening sanitation policies and effective implementation of programmes to address gender power relations and familial relationships that influence latrine adoption and use

Identifying Potential Sources of Exposure Along the Child Feces Management Pathway: A Cross-Sectional Study Among Urban Slums in Odisha, India.

Child feces represent a particular health risk to children due to increased prevalence of enteric agents and a higher risk of exposure owing to exploratory behaviors of young children. The safe management of such feces presents a significant challenge, not only for the 2.4 billion who lack access to improved sanitation, but also due to unhygienic feces collection and disposal and poor subsequent handwashing practices. We assessed potential sources of fecal exposure by documenting child feces management practices in a cross-sectional study of 851 children < 5 years of age from 694 households in 42 slums in two cities in Odisha, India. No preambulatory children and only 27.4% of ambulatory children defecated directly in the latrine. Children that did not defecate in a latrine mainly defecated on the ground, whether they were preambulatory or ambulatory. Use of diapers (1.2%) or potties (2.8%) was low. If the feces were removed from the ground, the defecation area was usually cleaned, if at all, only with water. Most children's feces were disposed of in surrounding environment, with only 6.5% deposited into any kind of latrine, including unimproved. Handwashing with soap of the caregiver after child feces disposal and child anal cleaning with soap after defecation was also uncommon. While proper disposal of child feces in an improved latrine still represents a major challenge, control of the risks presented requires attention to the full range of exposures associated to the management of child feces, and not simply the place of disposal

Socio-cultural and behavioural factors constraining latrine adoption in rural coastal Odisha: an exploratory qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Open defecation is widely practiced in India. To improve sanitation and promote better health, the Government of India (GOI) has instituted large scale sanitation programmes supporting construction of public and institutional toilets and extending financial subsidies for poor families in rural areas for building individual household latrines. Nevertheless, many household latrines in rural India, built with government subsidies and the facilitation and support of non-government organizations (NGO), remain unused. Literature on social, cultural and behavioural aspects that constrain latrine adoption and use in rural India is limited. This paper examines defecation patterns of different groups of people in rural areas of Odisha state in India to identify causes and determinants of latrine non-use, with a special focus on government-subsidized latrine owners, and shortcomings in household sanitation infrastructure built with government subsidies. METHODS: An exploratory study using qualitative methods was conducted in rural communities in Odisha state. Methods used were focus group discussions (FGDs), and observations of latrines and interviews with their owners. FGDs were held with frontline NGO sanitation program staff, and with community members, separately by caste, gender, latrine type, and age group. Data were analysed using a thematic framework and approach. RESULTS: Government subsidized latrines were mostly found unfinished. Many counted as complete per government standards for disbursement of financial subsidies to contracted NGOs were not accepted by their owners and termed as 'incomplete'. These latrines lacked a roof, door, adequate walls and any provision for water supply in or near the cabin, whereas rural people had elaborate processes of cleansing with water post defecation, making presence of a nearby water source important. Habits, socialising, sanitation rituals and daily routines varying with caste, gender, marital status, age and lifestyle, also hindered the adoption of latrines. Interest in constructing latrines was observed among male heads for their female members especially a newlywed daughter-in-law, reflecting concerns for their privacy, security, and convenience. This paper elaborates on these different factors. CONCLUSIONS: Findings show that providing infrastructure does not ensure use when there are significant and culturally engrained behavioural barriers to using latrines. Future sanitation programmes in rural India need to focus on understanding and addressing these behavioural barriers

Child Defecation and Feces Disposal Practices and Determinants among Households after a Combined Household-Level Piped Water and Sanitation Intervention in Rural Odisha, India.

Latrine access alone may be insufficient to encourage households to dispose of young children's feces safely in a latrine, and little is known about the determinants of improved child feces disposal. We used longitudinal data collected at up to three timepoints for children less than 5 years of age from households in Odisha, India, which received a combined household-level piped water supply and sanitation intervention, but did not specifically promote the safe disposal of child feces. Among the 85% of intervention households who reported access to improved sanitation, we characterized child defecation and feces disposal practices by age, across time, and season, and assessed determinants of improved disposal. Feces from children less than 3 years of age was commonly picked up by caregivers but disposed of unsafely with garbage into open areas (56.3% of households) or in a drain/ditch (6.2%). Although children 3 and 4 years were more likely to use a latrine than younger children, their feces was also more likely to be left in the open if they did not defecate in a latrine. For children less than 5 years of age, most (84.7%) children's feces that was safely disposed of in a latrine was because of the children defecating in the latrine directly. Significant predictors for disposing of child feces in an improved latrine were the primary female caregiver reporting using a latrine to defecate, the child's age, and water observed at place for handwashing. These findings suggest that child feces interventions should focus on encouraging children to begin using a toilet at a younger age and changing the common behavior of disposing of young child's feces into open areas

The impact of a rural sanitation programme on safe disposal of child faeces: a cluster randomised trial in Odisha, India.

BACKGROUND: Unsafe disposal of child faeces is persistent and may lead to considerable impact on the health of young children. Research is limited on the impact of sanitation or hygiene interventions to improve child faeces disposal practices. METHODS: In the context of a randomised controlled trial to assess the health impact of a programme in Odisha, India, to promote rural sanitation under the Government of India's Total Sanitation Campaign, we explored whether the intervention affected the safe disposal of faeces of children under-5 years of age. RESULTS: At baseline, 1.1% of households practised 'safe' disposal of child faeces, either disposing it in a toilet or by burial. The intervention increased safe disposal of child faeces to 10.4% in intervention households, compared to 3.1% in the control households (RR 3.34; 95% CI 1.99-5.59). This increase in safe disposal is attributable to increases in latrine presence in the intervention communities; the intervention did not change safe disposal practices above and beyond the increase in latrine coverage. CONCLUSIONS: The very modest increase in safe disposal, while statistically significant, is not likely to have consequential health benefit. To achieve open defecation free communities, sanitation interventions will need to develop behaviour change approaches to explicitly target safe disposal behaviours

Child feces management practices and fecal contamination: A cross-sectional study in rural Odisha, India.

Safe child feces management (CFM) is likely critical for reducing exposure to fecal pathogens in and around the home, but the effectiveness of different CFM practices in reducing fecal contamination is not well understood. We conducted a cross-sectional study of households with children <6 years in rural Odisha, India, using household surveys (188 households), environmental sample analysis (373 samples for 80 child defecation events), and unstructured observation (33 households) to characterize practices and measure fecal contamination resulting from CFM-related practices, including defecation, feces handling and disposal, defecation area or tool cleaning, anal cleansing, and handwashing. For environmental sampling, we developed a sampling strategy that involved collecting samples at the time and place of child defecation to capture activity-level fecal contamination for CFM practices. Defecating on the floor or ground, which was practiced by 63.7% of children <6 years, was found to increase E. coli contamination on finished floors (p < 0.001) or earthen ground surfaces (p = 0.008) after feces were removed, even if paper was laid down prior to defecation. Use of unsafe tools (e.g., paper, plastic bag, straw/hay) to pick up child feces increased E. coli contamination on caregiver hands after feces handling (p < 0.0001), whereas the use of safe tools (e.g., potty, hoe, scoop) did not increase hand contamination. Points of contamination from cleaning CFM hardware and anal cleansing were also identified. The most common disposal location for feces of children <6 years was to throw feces into an open field (41.6%), with only 32.3% disposed in a latrine. Several households owned scoops or potties, but use was low and we identified shortcomings of these CFM tools and proposed alternative interventions that may be more effective. Overall, our results demonstrate the need for CFM interventions that move beyond focusing solely on feces disposal to address CFM as a holistic set of practices

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

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

The association between women's sanitation experiences and mental health: A cross-sectional study in Rural, Odisha India.

Emerging qualitative research suggests women's sanitation experiences may impact mental health. However, specific associations remain unclear. We aimed to determine if sanitation access and sanitation experiences were associated with mental health among women in rural Odisha, India. Using a cross-sectional design, we evaluated the association between sanitation access and sanitation experiences and selected mental health outcomes. Data were collected from 1347 randomly selected women across four life course stages in 60 rural communities (December 2014-February 2015). Our four primary outcomes included: mental well-being, and symptoms of anxiety, depression, and distress. The primary exposures were (1) access to a functional latrine within the household compound and (2) sanitation insecurity (SI), evaluated using a seven domain measure assessing women's negative sanitation experiences and concerns. We used hierarchical linear modeling to determine associations between the exposures and mental health outcomes, adjusting for covariates (life stage, poverty, current health status, social support). Mean well-being scores were moderate and mean anxiety, depression, and distress scores were above a threshold indicating the potential presence of any of the three conditions. Access to a functional household latrine was associated with higher well-being scores, but not with anxiety, depression or distress. Women's SI domains were associated with all four outcomes: four domains were significantly associated with lower well-being scores, two were significantly associated with higher anxiety scores, three were significantly associated with higher depression scores, and three were significantly associated with higher distress scores, all independent of functional household latrine access. Women in rural Odisha, India may suffer assaults to their well-being and have higher symptoms of anxiety, depression, and distress when urinating and defecating, even if they have an available facility. These findings suggest that sanitation-related interventions should consider how to accommodate women's experiences beyond excreta management to comprehensively impact health

A cluster-randomized multi-level intervention to increase latrine use and safe disposal of child feces in rural Odisha, India: the Sundara Grama research protocol.

BACKGROUND: Despite health benefits of sanitation, an estimated 12% of the global population practices open defecation, including an estimated 50% of the population of India. Current estimates, however, do not include households that own toilets but do not use them, suggesting that the actual number of people defecating in the open is underestimated. This protocol describes a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate an intervention specifically designed to increase latrine use, including the safe disposal of child feces, in rural Odisha, India. METHODS: The trial engages 66 villages in Puri district, 33 randomly allocated to receive the intervention and 33 to serve as controls. The primary outcome is latrine use and is recorded at baseline and endline for all members of all households that own latrines in all trial vilalges. Additional data on determinants of latrine use and safe child feces disposal are also collected to assess change based on the intervetntion. A process evaluation assesses the delivery of the intervention and qualiative research takes place in non-trial villages as well as post-endline in trial villages to help explain trial findings. DISCUSSION: This is one of four trials taking place simultaneously in rural India with latrine use as the primary outcome. All four studies use the same outcome to gerenate comparable data across sites that can serve the government of India. The trial in Odisha is unique in that it collects latrine use data from all potential users in all households that own latrines, enabling a thorough view of the sanitation situation and factors that influence use at the community level. That latrine use is collected via self-report is a limitation, however any bias in reporting should be the same across villages and not impact the overall assessment of intervention impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03274245