↓ Skip to main content

Factors associated with safe child feces disposal practices in Ethiopia: evidence from demographic and health survey

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Public Health, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Factors associated with safe child feces disposal practices in Ethiopia: evidence from demographic and health survey
Published in
Archives of Public Health, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13690-015-0090-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Muluken Azage, Demewoz Haile

Abstract

According to the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for water supply and Sanitation definition, safe child feces disposal practices include: children defecation into a latrine, disposal of child stools in a latrine or burial. Inappropriate disposal of human feces including unsafe child feces disposal facilitates the transmission of pathogens. However, the factors associated with safe child feces disposal practices have not been yet well explored in Ethiopia. This study aimed to identify factors associated with safe child feces disposal practices in Ethiopia. This study analyzed data from Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey (EDHS) 2011. The practice of child's feces disposal was categorized into 'safe' and 'unsafe' based on the WHO/ UNICEF JMP for water supply & Sanitation definition. Binary and multivariable logistic regression models were employed to identify factors associated with safe child feces disposal practices. The prevalence of safe child feces disposal was 33.68 % (95 % CI: 32.82-34.55). In the final multivariable logistic regression model, the practice of safe disposal of child feces was significantly associated with urban residency (AOR = 1.25, 95 % CI: 1.01-1.55) and having access to an improved latrine (AOR = 1.92, 95 % CI: 1.56-2.36). Households found in the poorer, middle, richer and richest wealth quintile had (AOR = 2.22, 95 % CI: 1.70-2.89), (AOR = 2.94, 95 % CI: 2.27-3.81), (AOR = 4.20, 95 % CI: 3.42-5.72) and (AOR = 8.06, 95 % CI: 5.91-10.99) times higher odds to practice safe child feces disposal respectively as compared households from poorest wealth quintile. Mothers/caregivers with primary, secondary and higher educational status had (AOR = 1.29, 95 % CI: 1.10-1.50), (AOR = 1. 64, 95 % CI: 1.12-2.41) and (AOR = 2.16, 95 % CI: 1.25-3.72) times higher odds to practice safe child feces disposal respectively than those mothers who had no education. Those mothers/caregivers whose child was 48-59 months old had (AOR = 2.21, 95 % CI: 1.82-2.68) times higher odds to practice safe child feces disposal as compared to mothers/caregivers who had a child with age less than 12 months old. The odds of safe child feces disposal among households who had one two and three under five years old children were (AOR = 3.11, 95 % CI: 1.87-5.19),(AOR = 2.55, 95 % CI: 1.53-4.24) and (AOR = 1.92, 95 % CI: 1.13-3.24) times higher respectively than households with four and more children of under five years old. Only one third of the mothers practiced safe child feces disposal in Ethiopia. Being an urban resident, having a higher wealth quintile, high levels of maternal education, older child age, having a lower number of under five years old children, and the presence of an improved latrine were factors associated with safe child feces disposal practices. Therefore interventions designed to improve safe child feces disposal practices should consider those factors identified. Further research is also needed to design intervention that will aim to improve safe child feces disposal.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 163 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 18%
Lecturer 24 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Student > Postgraduate 10 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 5%
Other 32 20%
Unknown 48 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 46 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 16%
Environmental Science 9 5%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 56 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 November 2016.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Public Health
#1,100
of 1,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,682
of 295,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Public Health
#17
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 295,167 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.