• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

肯尼亚锡亚县社区主导的整体环境卫生(CLTS)促进措施和家庭因素对厕所拥有率的影响。

Effects of Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) Boosting and Household Factors on Latrine Ownership in Siaya County, Kenya.

机构信息

Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki 852-8523, Japan.

Department of Ecoepidemiology, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki 852-8523, Japan.

出版信息

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Sep 18;20(18):6781. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20186781.

DOI:10.3390/ijerph20186781
PMID:37754640
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10531019/
Abstract

Community-led total sanitation (CLTS) is a widely used approach for enhancing sanitation practices. However, the impact of boosted CLTS on household latrine ownership has not been adequately evaluated. This study aims to investigate the factors associated with latrine possession among households, with a specific focus on single and CLTS-boosting implementation. A community-based repeated cross-sectional study was conducted in Siaya County, Kenya, involving 512 households at the baseline and 423 households at the follow-up. Data were analyzed using the mixed-effects logistic regression model. At the baseline, latrine possession was significantly associated with CLTS implementation (adjusted OR [aOR]: 3.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41-6.44), literacy among households (aOR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.12-2.98) and higher socioeconomic status (SES) (second level: aOR: 2.48; 95% CI:1.41-4.36, third level: aOR: 3.11; 95% CI: 1.76-5.50, fourth level: aOR: 10.20; 95% CI: 5.07-20.54). At follow-up, CLTS boosting (aOR: 7.92; 95% CI: 1.77-35.45) and a higher SES were associated with increased latrine ownership (second level: aOR: 2.04; 95% CI: 0.97-4.26, third level: aOR: 7.73; 95% CI: 2.98-20.03, fourth level: aOR: 9.93; 95% CI: 3.14-28.35). These findings highlight the significant role played by both single and CLST boosting in promoting universal latrine ownership and empowering vulnerable households to understand the importance of sanitation and open defecation-free practices.

摘要

社区主导的整体卫生(CLTS)是一种广泛使用的增强卫生习惯的方法。然而,强化 CLTS 对家庭厕所拥有率的影响尚未得到充分评估。本研究旨在调查与家庭厕所拥有率相关的因素,重点关注单一和强化 CLTS 的实施。在肯尼亚 Siaya 县进行了一项基于社区的重复横断面研究,基线涉及 512 户家庭,随访涉及 423 户家庭。使用混合效应逻辑回归模型分析数据。在基线时,厕所拥有率与 CLTS 实施显著相关(调整后的比值比 [aOR]:3.01;95%置信区间 [CI]:1.41-6.44),家庭识字率(aOR:1.83;95% CI:1.12-2.98)和较高的社会经济地位(SES)(第二级:aOR:2.48;95% CI:1.41-4.36,第三级:aOR:3.11;95% CI:1.76-5.50,第四级:aOR:10.20;95% CI:5.07-20.54)。在随访时,CLTS 强化(aOR:7.92;95% CI:1.77-35.45)和较高的 SES 与增加厕所拥有率相关(第二级:aOR:2.04;95% CI:0.97-4.26,第三级:aOR:7.73;95% CI:2.98-20.03,第四级:aOR:9.93;95% CI:3.14-28.35)。这些发现强调了单一和强化 CLTS 在促进普遍厕所拥有率和增强弱势群体理解卫生和无露天排便实践重要性方面的重要作用。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8341/10531019/6bd0dd8a9c73/ijerph-20-06781-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8341/10531019/8560283b9909/ijerph-20-06781-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8341/10531019/fc268732f8fa/ijerph-20-06781-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8341/10531019/6bd0dd8a9c73/ijerph-20-06781-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8341/10531019/8560283b9909/ijerph-20-06781-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8341/10531019/fc268732f8fa/ijerph-20-06781-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8341/10531019/6bd0dd8a9c73/ijerph-20-06781-g003.jpg

相似文献

1
Effects of Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) Boosting and Household Factors on Latrine Ownership in Siaya County, Kenya.肯尼亚锡亚县社区主导的整体环境卫生(CLTS)促进措施和家庭因素对厕所拥有率的影响。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Sep 18;20(18):6781. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20186781.
2
Latrine Utilization and Its Associated Factors Among Community Led Total Sanitation Implemented and Non-Implemented Kebeles of Tullo District, West Hararge, Eastern Ethiopia.埃塞俄比亚东部哈拉尔格西部图洛区实施和未实施社区主导全面卫生设施的凯贝勒地区的厕所使用情况及其相关因素
Environ Health Insights. 2022 Apr 13;16:11786302221091737. doi: 10.1177/11786302221091737. eCollection 2022.
3
How does Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) affect latrine ownership? A quantitative case study from Mozambique.社区主导型整体卫生(CLTS)如何影响厕所拥有率?来自莫桑比克的定量案例研究。
BMC Public Health. 2018 Mar 21;18(1):387. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5287-y.
4
The role of psychological factors in predicting latrine ownership and consistent latrine use in rural Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study.心理因素在预测埃塞俄比亚农村地区厕所拥有率和持续使用厕所方面的作用:一项横断面研究。
BMC Public Health. 2018 Feb 8;18(1):229. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5143-0.
5
Latrine Ownership and Its Determinants in Rural Villages of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia: Community-Based Cross-Sectional Study.提格雷北部农村地区厕所拥有情况及其决定因素:基于社区的横断面研究。
J Environ Public Health. 2020 Aug 17;2020:2123652. doi: 10.1155/2020/2123652. eCollection 2020.
6
How does Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) promote latrine construction, and can it be improved? A cluster-randomized controlled trial in Ghana.社区主导的整体环境卫生(CLTS)如何促进厕所建设,能否加以改进?加纳的一项整群随机对照试验。
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Jan;245:112705. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112705. Epub 2019 Dec 2.
7
Teachers and Sanitation Promotion: An Assessment of Community-Led Total Sanitation in Ethiopia.教师与环境卫生促进:埃塞俄比亚社区主导的全面环境卫生评估
Environ Sci Technol. 2016 Jun 21;50(12):6517-25. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b01021. Epub 2016 Jun 1.
8
Effect of a Community-Led Total Sanitation Intervention on Sanitation and Hygiene in Pallisa District, Uganda.社区主导的全面卫生干预对乌干达帕利萨区卫生和个人卫生的影响。
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020 Oct;103(4):1735-1741. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.19-0911.
9
Cost effectiveness of community led total sanitation in Ethiopia and Ghana.社区主导的全面环境卫生在埃塞俄比亚和加纳的成本效益。
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2021 Mar;232:113682. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113682. Epub 2020 Dec 24.
10
Having a latrine facility is not a guarantee for eliminating open defecation owing to socio-demographic and environmental factors: The case of Machakel district in Ethiopia.由于社会人口和环境因素,拥有厕所设施并不一定能保证消除露天排便:以埃塞俄比亚马卡莱区为例。
PLoS One. 2021 Sep 30;16(9):e0257813. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257813. eCollection 2021.

引用本文的文献

1
Effect of community-led total sanitation on open defecation in Uganda: A propensity score-matched analysis.社区主导的全面卫生设施对乌干达露天排便的影响:倾向得分匹配分析
PLoS One. 2025 Jul 24;20(7):e0329307. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0329307. eCollection 2025.
2
Water source, latrine type, and rainfall are associated with detection of non-optimal and enteric bacteria in the vaginal microbiome: a prospective observational cohort study nested within a cluster randomized controlled trial.水源、厕所类型和降雨量与阴道微生物群中检测到的非最佳细菌和肠道细菌有关:一项嵌套在整群随机对照试验中的前瞻性观察队列研究。
BMC Infect Dis. 2024 Dec 18;24(1):1419. doi: 10.1186/s12879-024-10313-3.

本文引用的文献

1
Community matters: Heterogeneous impacts of a sanitation intervention.社区很重要:一项卫生干预措施的异质性影响
World Dev. 2023 May;165:106197. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106197.
2
Household-level sanitation in Ethiopia and its influencing factors: a systematic review.埃塞俄比亚家庭环境卫生及其影响因素:系统评价。
BMC Public Health. 2022 Jul 29;22(1):1448. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13822-5.
3
Effects of community-led total sanitation and hygiene implementation on diarrheal diseases prevention in children less than five years of age in South Western Ethiopia: A quasi- experimental study.
社区主导的全面环境卫生和卫生实施对埃塞俄比亚西南部 5 岁以下儿童腹泻病预防的影响:一项准实验研究。
PLoS One. 2022 Apr 25;17(4):e0265804. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265804. eCollection 2022.
4
Can open-defecation free (ODF) communities be sustained? A cross-sectional study in rural Ghana.能否维持无露天排便(ODF)社区?加纳农村的一项横断面研究。
PLoS One. 2022 Jan 7;17(1):e0261674. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261674. eCollection 2022.
5
Prevalence of acute diarrhea and associated factors among children under five in semi-urban areas of northeastern Ethiopia.埃塞俄比亚东北部半城市地区五岁以下儿童急性腹泻的患病率及相关因素
BMC Pediatr. 2021 Jun 26;21(1):290. doi: 10.1186/s12887-021-02762-5.
6
Benefits and Costs of a Community-Led Total Sanitation Intervention in Rural Ethiopia-A Trial-Based ex post Economic Evaluation.埃塞俄比亚农村社区主导的完全环境卫生干预措施的效益和成本:基于试验的事后经济评价。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jul 14;17(14):5068. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17145068.
7
Water supply, sanitation and hygiene interventions and childhood diarrhea in Kersa and Omo Nada districts of Jimma Zone, Ethiopia: a comparative cross-sectional study.埃塞俄比亚吉马地区克萨和奥莫纳达区的供水、环境卫生与个人卫生干预措施及儿童腹泻情况:一项比较性横断面研究
J Health Popul Nutr. 2019 Dec 13;38(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s41043-019-0205-1.
8
Factors Associated with Levels of Latrine Completion and Consequent Latrine Use in Northern Ghana.加纳北部与厕所完工率及其后续使用相关的因素。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Mar 14;16(6):920. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16060920.
9
Evaluation of the effectiveness of a latrine intervention in the reduction of childhood diarrhoeal health in Nyando District, Kisumu County, Kenya.肯尼亚基苏木县尼亚永多地区厕所干预措施减少儿童腹泻病效果评估。
Epidemiol Infect. 2018 Jul;146(9):1079-1088. doi: 10.1017/S0950268818000924. Epub 2018 May 10.
10
How does Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) affect latrine ownership? A quantitative case study from Mozambique.社区主导型整体卫生(CLTS)如何影响厕所拥有率?来自莫桑比克的定量案例研究。
BMC Public Health. 2018 Mar 21;18(1):387. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5287-y.