RESUMO
There is increasing appreciation that latrine access does not imply use-many individuals who own latrines do not consistently use them. Little is known, however, about the determinants of latrine use, particularly among those with variable defecation behaviors. Using the integrated behavior model of water, sanitation, and hygiene framework, we sought to characterize determinants of latrine use in rural Ecuador. We interviewed 197 adults living in three communities with a survey consisting of 70 psychosocial defecation-related questions. Questions were excluded from analysis if responses lacked variability or at least 10% of respondents did not provide a definitive answer. All interviewed individuals had access to a privately owned or shared latrine. We then applied adaptive elastic nets (ENET) and supervised principal component analysis (SPCA) to a reduced dataset of 45 questions among 154 individuals with complete data to select determinants that predict self-reported latrine use. Latrine use was common, but not universal, in the sample (76%). The SPCA model identified six determinants and adaptive ENET selected five determinants. Three indicators were represented in both models-latrine users were more likely to report that their latrine is clean enough to use and also more likely to report daily latrine use; while those reporting that elderly men were not latrine users were less likely to use latrines themselves. Our findings suggest that social norms are important predictors of latrine use, whereas knowledge of the health benefits of sanitation may not be as important. These determinants are informative for promotion of latrine adoption.
Assuntos
Defecação , Higiene , População Rural/estatística & dados numéricos , Saneamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Banheiros/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Coleta de Dados , Equador , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Inquéritos e Questionários , Adulto JovemRESUMO
Many community-based studies of acute child illness rely on cases reported by caregivers. In prior investigations, researchers noted a reporting bias when longer illness recall periods were used. The use of recall periods longer than 2-3 days has been discouraged to minimize this reporting bias. In the present study, we sought to determine the optimal recall period for illness measurement when accounting for both bias and variance. Using data from 12,191 children less than 24 months of age collected in 2008-2009 from Himachal Pradesh in India, Madhya Pradesh in India, Indonesia, Peru, and Senegal, we calculated bias, variance, and mean squared error for estimates of the prevalence ratio between groups defined by anemia, stunting, and underweight status to identify optimal recall periods for caregiver-reported diarrhea, cough, and fever. There was little bias in the prevalence ratio when a 7-day recall period was used (<10% in 35 of 45 scenarios), and the mean squared error was usually minimized with recall periods of 6 or more days. Shortening the recall period from 7 days to 2 days required sample-size increases of 52%-92% for diarrhea, 47%-61% for cough, and 102%-206% for fever. In contrast to the current practice of using 2-day recall periods, this work suggests that studies should measure caregiver-reported illness with a 7-day recall period.