Assessing latrine use in rural India: A cross-sectional study comparing reported use and passive latrine use monitors

Antara Sinha, Corey Nagel, Evan Thomas, Wolf P. Schmidt, Belen Torondel, Sophie Boisson, Thomas F. Clasen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Although large-scale programs, like India's Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC), have improved latrine coverage in rural settings, evidence suggests that actual use is suboptimal. However, the reliability of methods to assess latrine use is uncertain. We assessed the reliability of reported use, the standard method, by comparing survey-based responses against passive latrine use monitors (PLUMs) through a cross-sectional study among 292 households in 25 villages in rural Odisha, India, which recently received individual household latrines under the TSC. PLUMs were installed for 2 weeks and householders responded to surveys about their latrine use behavior. Reported use was compared with PLUM results using Bland-Altman (BA) plots and concordance statistics. Reported use was higher than corresponding PLUM-recorded events across the range of comparisons. The mean reported "usual" daily events per household (7.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.51, 7.68) was nearly twice that of the PLUM-recorded daily average (3.62, 95% CI = 3.29, 3.94). There was poor agreement between "usual" daily latrine use and the average daily PLUM-recorded events (ρc = 0.331, 95% CI = 0.242, 0.427). Moderate agreement (ρc = 0.598, 95% CI = 0.497, 0.683) was obtained when comparing daily reported use during the previous 48 hours with the average daily PLUM count. Reported latrine use, though already suggesting suboptimal adoption, likely exaggerates the actual level of uptake of latrines constructed under the program. Where reliance on self-reports is used, survey questions should focus on the 48 hours prior to the date of the survey rather than asking about "usual" latrine use behavior.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)720-727
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
Volume95
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2016

Fingerprint

Toilet Facilities
India
Cross-Sectional Studies
Confidence Intervals
Sanitation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Parasitology
  • Medicine(all)
  • Virology
  • Infectious Diseases

Cite this

Assessing latrine use in rural India : A cross-sectional study comparing reported use and passive latrine use monitors. / Sinha, Antara; Nagel, Corey; Thomas, Evan; Schmidt, Wolf P.; Torondel, Belen; Boisson, Sophie; Clasen, Thomas F.

In: American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, Vol. 95, No. 3, 01.09.2016, p. 720-727.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sinha, Antara ; Nagel, Corey ; Thomas, Evan ; Schmidt, Wolf P. ; Torondel, Belen ; Boisson, Sophie ; Clasen, Thomas F. / Assessing latrine use in rural India : A cross-sectional study comparing reported use and passive latrine use monitors. In: American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2016 ; Vol. 95, No. 3. pp. 720-727.
@article{32a4c00e2b0b46628e9045d3a5e78797,
title = "Assessing latrine use in rural India: A cross-sectional study comparing reported use and passive latrine use monitors",
abstract = "Although large-scale programs, like India's Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC), have improved latrine coverage in rural settings, evidence suggests that actual use is suboptimal. However, the reliability of methods to assess latrine use is uncertain. We assessed the reliability of reported use, the standard method, by comparing survey-based responses against passive latrine use monitors (PLUMs) through a cross-sectional study among 292 households in 25 villages in rural Odisha, India, which recently received individual household latrines under the TSC. PLUMs were installed for 2 weeks and householders responded to surveys about their latrine use behavior. Reported use was compared with PLUM results using Bland-Altman (BA) plots and concordance statistics. Reported use was higher than corresponding PLUM-recorded events across the range of comparisons. The mean reported {"}usual{"} daily events per household (7.09, 95{\%} confidence interval [CI] = 6.51, 7.68) was nearly twice that of the PLUM-recorded daily average (3.62, 95{\%} CI = 3.29, 3.94). There was poor agreement between {"}usual{"} daily latrine use and the average daily PLUM-recorded events (ρc = 0.331, 95{\%} CI = 0.242, 0.427). Moderate agreement (ρc = 0.598, 95{\%} CI = 0.497, 0.683) was obtained when comparing daily reported use during the previous 48 hours with the average daily PLUM count. Reported latrine use, though already suggesting suboptimal adoption, likely exaggerates the actual level of uptake of latrines constructed under the program. Where reliance on self-reports is used, survey questions should focus on the 48 hours prior to the date of the survey rather than asking about {"}usual{"} latrine use behavior.",
author = "Antara Sinha and Corey Nagel and Evan Thomas and Schmidt, {Wolf P.} and Belen Torondel and Sophie Boisson and Clasen, {Thomas F.}",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4269/ajtmh.16-0102",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "95",
pages = "720--727",
journal = "American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene",
issn = "0002-9637",
publisher = "American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing latrine use in rural India

T2 - A cross-sectional study comparing reported use and passive latrine use monitors

AU - Sinha, Antara

AU - Nagel, Corey

AU - Thomas, Evan

AU - Schmidt, Wolf P.

AU - Torondel, Belen

AU - Boisson, Sophie

AU - Clasen, Thomas F.

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - Although large-scale programs, like India's Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC), have improved latrine coverage in rural settings, evidence suggests that actual use is suboptimal. However, the reliability of methods to assess latrine use is uncertain. We assessed the reliability of reported use, the standard method, by comparing survey-based responses against passive latrine use monitors (PLUMs) through a cross-sectional study among 292 households in 25 villages in rural Odisha, India, which recently received individual household latrines under the TSC. PLUMs were installed for 2 weeks and householders responded to surveys about their latrine use behavior. Reported use was compared with PLUM results using Bland-Altman (BA) plots and concordance statistics. Reported use was higher than corresponding PLUM-recorded events across the range of comparisons. The mean reported "usual" daily events per household (7.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.51, 7.68) was nearly twice that of the PLUM-recorded daily average (3.62, 95% CI = 3.29, 3.94). There was poor agreement between "usual" daily latrine use and the average daily PLUM-recorded events (ρc = 0.331, 95% CI = 0.242, 0.427). Moderate agreement (ρc = 0.598, 95% CI = 0.497, 0.683) was obtained when comparing daily reported use during the previous 48 hours with the average daily PLUM count. Reported latrine use, though already suggesting suboptimal adoption, likely exaggerates the actual level of uptake of latrines constructed under the program. Where reliance on self-reports is used, survey questions should focus on the 48 hours prior to the date of the survey rather than asking about "usual" latrine use behavior.

AB - Although large-scale programs, like India's Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC), have improved latrine coverage in rural settings, evidence suggests that actual use is suboptimal. However, the reliability of methods to assess latrine use is uncertain. We assessed the reliability of reported use, the standard method, by comparing survey-based responses against passive latrine use monitors (PLUMs) through a cross-sectional study among 292 households in 25 villages in rural Odisha, India, which recently received individual household latrines under the TSC. PLUMs were installed for 2 weeks and householders responded to surveys about their latrine use behavior. Reported use was compared with PLUM results using Bland-Altman (BA) plots and concordance statistics. Reported use was higher than corresponding PLUM-recorded events across the range of comparisons. The mean reported "usual" daily events per household (7.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.51, 7.68) was nearly twice that of the PLUM-recorded daily average (3.62, 95% CI = 3.29, 3.94). There was poor agreement between "usual" daily latrine use and the average daily PLUM-recorded events (ρc = 0.331, 95% CI = 0.242, 0.427). Moderate agreement (ρc = 0.598, 95% CI = 0.497, 0.683) was obtained when comparing daily reported use during the previous 48 hours with the average daily PLUM count. Reported latrine use, though already suggesting suboptimal adoption, likely exaggerates the actual level of uptake of latrines constructed under the program. Where reliance on self-reports is used, survey questions should focus on the 48 hours prior to the date of the survey rather than asking about "usual" latrine use behavior.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84984804430&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84984804430&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4269/ajtmh.16-0102

DO - 10.4269/ajtmh.16-0102

M3 - Article

C2 - 27458042

AN - SCOPUS:84984804430

VL - 95

SP - 720

EP - 727

JO - American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

JF - American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

SN - 0002-9637

IS - 3

ER -