Characteristics of sanitation and hygiene facilities in a slum community in Kampala, Uganda
Charles Ssemugabo, Solomon Tsebeni Wafula, Rawlance Ndejjo, Jimmy Osuret, David Musoke, Abdullah Ali Halage
Abstract
Open-access reader
Charles Ssemugabo, Solomon Tsebeni Wafula, Rawlance Ndejjo, Jimmy Osuret, David Musoke, Abdullah Ali Halage
Abstract
Open-access reader
BACKGROUND: This study assessed characteristics of sanitation and hygiene facilities in a slum community in Kampala, Uganda. METHODS: We conducted a household-based cross-sectional study among 395 households in Kasubi slum using a semi-structured questionnaire and observational checklist to collect data. RESULTS: Almost 98.0% (387/395) of households owned a sanitation facility and 77.0% (298/387) shared it with other households. The most common type of sanitation facility was a pit latrine with slab (66.9% [259/387]). Most (90.5% [305/337]) latrines had a door or shutter, a roof (92.9% [313/337]) and a depth >1.5 m (68.2% [229/337]). Overall, 21.3% (84/395) and 65.6% (259/395) of households had improved and functional sanitation facilities, respectively. Only 16.5% (65/395) of the households had a hand-washing facility. Student-led (adjusted prevalence rate [PR] 2.67 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.83-3.94]) and households that owned their house (adjusted PR 2.17 [95% CI 1.33-3.53]) were 2.67 and 2.17 times more likely to have improved sanitation facilities, respectively. Households that owned their house (adjusted PR 1.90 [95% CI 1.18-3.05]) were 1.9 times more likely to possess a hand-washing facility. CONCLUSIONS: The coverage of improved sanitation and hygiene facilities was low. The majority of households were using a shared pit latrine with a slab that had no hand-washing facility. Sanitation and hygiene interventions should prioritize improving sanitation and hygiene facilities.
OpenAlex reports 34 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
BACKGROUND: This study assessed characteristics of sanitation and hygiene facilities in a slum community in Kampala, Uganda. METHODS: We conducted a household-based cross-sectional study among 395 households in Kasubi slum using a semi-structured questionnaire and observational checklist to collect data. RESULTS: Almost 98.0% (387/395) of households owned a sanitation facility and 77.0% (298/387) shared it with other households. The most common type of sanitation facility was a pit latrine with slab (66.9% [259/387]). Most (90.5% [305/337]) latrines had a door or shutter, a roof (92.9% [313/337]) and a depth >1.5 m (68.2% [229/337]). Overall, 21.3% (84/395) and 65.6% (259/395) of households had improved and functional sanitation facilities, respectively. Only 16.5% (65/395) of the households had a hand-washing facility. Student-led (adjusted prevalence rate [PR] 2.67 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.83-3.94]) and households that owned their house (adjusted PR 2.17 [95% CI 1.33-3.53]) were 2.67 and 2.17 times more likely to have improved sanitation facilities, respectively. Households that owned their house (adjusted PR 1.90 [95% CI 1.18-3.05]) were 1.9 times more likely to possess a hand-washing facility. CONCLUSIONS: The coverage of improved sanitation and hygiene facilities was low. The majority of households were using a shared pit latrine with a slab that had no hand-washing facility. Sanitation and hygiene interventions should prioritize improving sanitation and hygiene facilities.
Key concepts: Sanitation, Hygiene, Slum, Environmental health, Socioeconomics, Medicine, Geography, Economic growth