Publication

Comparison of respondent-reported and sensor-recorded latrine utilization measures in rural Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study

Downloadable Content

Persistent URL
Last modified
  • 05/15/2025
Type of Material
Authors
    Maryann G. Delea, Emory UniversityCorey L. Nagel, Portland State UniversityEvan A. Thomas, Portland State UniversityAmal K. Halder, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease ResearchNuhu Amin, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease ResearchAbul K. Shoab, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease ResearchMatthew Freeman, Emory UniversityLeanne Unicomb, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease ResearchThomas Clasen, Emory University
Language
  • English
Date
  • 2017-07-01
Publisher
  • Oxford University Press (OUP): Policy B - Oxford Open Option B
Publication Version
Copyright Statement
  • © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.
License
Final Published Version (URL)
Title of Journal or Parent Work
ISSN
  • 0035-9203
Volume
  • 111
Issue
  • 7
Start Page
  • 308
End Page
  • 315
Grant/Funding Information
  • Funding: This work was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Global Development Grant number OPP1102989).
Supplemental Material (URL)
Abstract
  • Background: Health improvements realized through sanitation are likely achieved through high levels of facilities utilization by all household members. However, measurements of sanitation often rely on either the presence of latrines, which does not guarantee use, or respondent-reported utilization of sanitation facilities, which is prone to response bias. Overstatement of sanitation metrics limits the accuracy of program outcome measures, and has implications for the interpretation of related health impact data. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 213 households in 14 village water, sanitation and hygiene committee clusters throughout rural Bangladesh and used a combined data- and relationship-scale approach to assess agreement between respondent-reported latrine utilization and sensor-recorded measurement. Results: Four-day household-level respondent-reported defecation averaged 28 events (inter-quartile range [IQR] 20-40), while sensor-recorded defecation averaged 17 events (IQR 11-29). Comparative analyses suggest moderately high accuracy (bias correction factor=0.84), but imprecision in the data (broad scatter of data, Pearson's r=0.35) and thus only weak concordance between measures (ρc=0.29 [95% BCa CI 0.15 to 0.43]). Conclusions: Respondent-reported latrine utilization data should be interpreted with caution, as evidence suggests use is exaggerated. Coupling reported utilization data with objective measures of use may aid in the estimation of latrine use.
Author Notes
Keywords
Research Categories
  • Health Sciences, Public Health
  • Health Sciences, Epidemiology
  • Environmental Sciences

Tools

Relations

In Collection:

Items