1958
DOI: 10.2105/ajph.48.11_pt_1.1502
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Role of Beliefs And Customs in Sanitation Programs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1962
1962
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, important factors related to sanitation access may not be covered by such survey. One example is culture, which may influence the behavior of households (Dwipayanti et al, 2019; Paul, 1958; White, 2011). Another limitation is the cross-sectional form of the 2016 SUSENAS that hinders the establishment of causality between the explanatory variables and the outcome variable.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, important factors related to sanitation access may not be covered by such survey. One example is culture, which may influence the behavior of households (Dwipayanti et al, 2019; Paul, 1958; White, 2011). Another limitation is the cross-sectional form of the 2016 SUSENAS that hinders the establishment of causality between the explanatory variables and the outcome variable.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Later, Paul ( 38 ) identifies three reasons for the misunderstandings that can arise in a healthy interaction. First, is the assumption that the “others” have “unusual and peculiar” customs and beliefs.…”
Section: Culture As An Interpretative Key To Health Behaviorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The former guarantees that the communities are likely experiencing similar hydrological effects on their natural water systems like groundwater and surface water. The latter hopefully helped prevent the need to adjust for the cross-communal effect that factors like ancestral or tribal attitudes may have on water and sanitation habits, which can be otherwise significant [25], [26]. an easy nomenclature was adopted by naming the communities community 1 (population 4,962), community 2 (population 4,443), community 3 (population 3,128), community 4 (population 3,383), community 5 (population 4,305), and community 6 (population 2,877).…”
Section: Identification Of Communitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%