2020International HealthOpen access

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

Open full text 34 citations

Abstract

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.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 34 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

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

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Characteristics of sanitation and hygiene facilities in a slum community in Kampala, Uganda — Research Paper | ScholarLens