Evidence Hub

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

Maryann G. Delea, C. Nagel, Evan A. Thomas, A. Halder, Nuhu Amin, A. K. Shoab, M. Freeman, L. Unicomb et al.

Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 2017

16 citations

Abstract

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…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free