Do Piped Water and Flush Toilets Prevent Child Diarrhea in Rural Philippines?

Capuno, Joseph J.; Tan, Carlos Antonio R.; Fabella, Vigile Marie

doi:10.23846/wss1.5-phillippines-gfr

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this paper, we investigate the impact of access to various drinking water sources and sanitation facilities on incidence of diarrhea among children aged below 5 years in Ethiopia. Similar studies have been conducted in other countries including India (Jalan & Ravallion, ; Fan & Mahal, ; Kumar & Vollmer, ), Bangladesh (Begum, Ahmed, & Sen, ), Senegal (Novak, ), Philippines (Capuno, Tan, & Fabella, ), and Egypt (Roushdy & Sieverding, ). While most of these studies focus on the impact of water sources, Begum et al () and Capuno et al (), like this paper, investigate the impact of both water sources and sanitation facilities on incidence of diarrhea.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 70%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dirty hands on troubled waters: Sanitation, access to water and child health in Ethiopia

Manalew

Tennekoon

2019

Review Development Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we investigate the impact of access to drinking water sources and sanitation facilities on the incidence of diarrheal diseases among children below 5 years of age in Ethiopia using the propensity score matching technique with a polychotomous treatment variable. We find that among the water sources traditionally considered as improved, only water piped into dwelling, yard or plot leads to a large percentage point reduction in diarrhea incidence. The other water sources, generally believed as clean, are not effective in reducing diarrhea even compared with some of the unimproved water sources. We also find that some unimproved water sources and sanitation facilities are less inferior than they are believed to be. These results suggest that the traditional way of categorizing different types of improved and unimproved water sources and sanitation facilities into a dichotomous variable, “improved” or “unimproved”, could be misleading as it masks the heterogeneous effects of the water sources and the sanitation facilities.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 70%

“… Capuno et al () find that an improvement in sanitation facility has a larger effect than the effect of upgrading the water source. The treatment in their case, however, is whether households were provided with their own flush toilets, which is not the case in our paper.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dirty hands on troubled waters: Sanitation, access to water and child health in Ethiopia

Manalew

Tennekoon

2019

Review Development Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(), Capuno et al . (), Fan and Mahal () and Kumar and Vollmer ()). A strength of this study is that it compares different types of sanitation intervention and different levels of coverage of those facilities, allows for a non‐linear relationship with health outcomes and pools data from multiple countries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…() and Capuno et al . () used DHS (or similar household level survey) data and propensity score matching methods to compare households with ‘improved sanitation’ (typically improved latrines) with households with unimproved sanitation. Komarulzaman et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Most studies are retrospective analyses of household survey data, particularly single-country demographic and health surveys (DHSs). Fan and Mahal (2011), Kumar and Vollmer (2013), Begum et al (2011) and Capuno et al (2015) used DHS (or similar household level survey) data and propensity score matching methods to compare households with 'improved sanitation' (typically improved latrines) with households with unimproved sanitation. Komarulzaman et al (2017) similarly used an adjusted logistic regression approach and Godfrey et al (2014) used a difference-indifferences method to estimate the effect of improved sanitation on the risk of diarrhoea at the household level.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Health Effects of Sanitation Facilities: A Bayesian Semiparametric Analysis of Compositional Data

Watson

Sartori

Uthman

et al. 2019

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Diarrhoeal disease is one of the leading causes of illness and death in young children: a problem exacerbated by a lack of access to safe sanitation facilities. But the effects of different types of sanitation facilities, and the relationship between their levels of coverage in an area and disease risk, remain uncertain. We specify a hierarchical model that enables us to estimate the disease risk response surface across the multi‐dimensional space of the composition of sanitation facilities in an area. This permits a non‐linear relationship between coverage of improved sanitation, differential effects by sanitation type and unobserved differences between countries. The model is used to estimate the change in risk associated with different types of sanitation facility, from which it is estimated that only increases in the coverage of sewerage and private improved sanitation facilities will achieve clinically meaningful reductions in the risk of adverse outcomes.

show abstract

Interventions promoting uptake of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) technologies in low‐ and middle‐income countries: An evidence and gap map of effectiveness studies

Chirgwin

Cairncross

Zehra

et al. 2021

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Lack of access to and use of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) cause 1.6 million deaths every year, of which 1.2 million are due to gastrointestinal illnesses like diarrhoea and acute respiratory infections like pneumonia. Poor WASH access and use also diminish nutrition and educational attainment, and cause danger and stress for vulnerable populations, especially for women and girls. The hardest hit regions are sub‐Saharan Africa and South Asia. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 calls for the end of open defecation, and universal access to safely managed water and sanitation facilities, and basic hand hygiene, by 2030. WASH access and use also underpin progress in other areas such as SDG1 poverty targets, SDG3 health and SDG4 education targets. Meeting the SDG equity agenda to “leave none behind” will require WASH providers prioritise the hardest to reach including those living remotely and people who are disadvantaged. Objectives Decision makers need access to high‐quality evidence on what works in WASH promotion in different contexts, and for different groups of people, to reach the most disadvantaged populations and thereby achieve universal targets. The WASH evidence map is envisioned as a tool for commissioners and researchers to identify existing studies to fill synthesis gaps, as well as helping to prioritise new studies where there are gaps in knowledge. It also supports policymakers and practitioners to navigate the evidence base, including presenting critically appraised findings from existing systematic reviews. Methods This evidence map presents impact evaluations and systematic reviews from the WASH sector, organised according to the types of intervention mechanisms, WASH technologies promoted, and outcomes measured. It is based on a framework of intervention mechanisms (e.g., behaviour change triggering or microloans) and outcomes along the causal pathway, specifically behavioural outcomes (e.g., handwashing and food hygiene practices), ill‐health outcomes (e.g., diarrhoeal morbidity and mortality), nutrition and socioeconomic outcomes (e.g., school absenteeism and household income). The map also provides filters to examine the evidence for a particular WASH technology (e.g., latrines), place of use (e.g., home, school or health facility), location (e.g., global region, country, rural and urban) and group (e.g., people living with disability). Systematic searches for published and unpublished literature and trial registries were conducted of studies in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Searches were conducted in March 2018, and searches for completed trials were done in May 2020. Coding of information for the map was done by two authors working independently. Impact evaluations were critically appraised according to methods of conduct and reporting. Systematic reviews were critically appraised using a new approach to assess theory‐based, mixed‐methods evidence synthesis. Results There has been an enormous growth in impact evaluations and systematic reviews of WASH ...

show abstract

Do Piped Water and Flush Toilets Prevent Child Diarrhea in Rural Philippines?

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Dirty hands on troubled waters: Sanitation, access to water and child health in Ethiopia

Dirty hands on troubled waters: Sanitation, access to water and child health in Ethiopia

Health Effects of Sanitation Facilities: A Bayesian Semiparametric Analysis of Compositional Data

Interventions promoting uptake of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) technologies in low‐ and middle‐income countries: An evidence and gap map of effectiveness studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About