↓ Skip to main content

Advantages and limitations for users of double pit pour-flush latrines: a qualitative study in rural Bangladesh

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
Advantages and limitations for users of double pit pour-flush latrines: a qualitative study in rural Bangladesh
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4412-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Faruqe Hussain, Thomas Clasen, Shahinoor Akter, Victoria Bawel, Stephen P. Luby, Elli Leontsini, Leanne Unicomb, Milan Kanti Barua, Brittany Thomas, Peter J. Winch

Abstract

In rural Bangladesh, India and elsewhere, pour-flush pit latrines are the most common sanitation system. When a single pit latrine becomes full, users must empty it themselves and risk exposure to fresh feces, pay an emptying service to remove pit contents or build a new latrine. Double pit pour-flush latrines may serve as a long-term sanitation option including high water table areas because the pits do not need to be emptied immediately and the excreta decomposes into reusable soil. Double pit pour-flush latrines were implemented in rural Bangladesh for 'hardcore poor' households by a national NGO, BRAC. We conducted interviews, focus groups, and spot checks in two low-income, rural areas of Bangladesh to explore the advantages and limitations of using double pit latrines compared to single pit latrines. The rural households accepted the double pit pour-flush latrine model and considered it feasible to use and maintain. This latrine design increased accessibility of a sanitation facility for these low-income residents and provided privacy, convenience and comfort, compared to open defecation. Although a double pit latrine is more costly and requires more space than a single pit latrine the households perceived this sanitation system to save resources, because households did not need to hire service workers to empty pits or remove decomposed contents themselves. In addition, the excreta decomposition process produced a reusable soil product that some households used in homestead gardening. The durability of the latrine superstructures was a problem, as most of the bamboo-pole superstructure broke after 6-18 months of use. Double pit pour-flush latrines are a long-term improved sanitation option that offers users several important advantages over single pit pour-flush latrines like in rural Bangladesh which can also be used in areas with high water table. Further research can provide an understanding of the comparative health impacts and effectiveness of the model in preventing human excreta from entering the environment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 37 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 12 11%
Engineering 10 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 44 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 August 2017.
All research outputs
#13,747,876
of 23,306,612 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,764
of 15,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,195
of 314,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#181
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,306,612 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,196 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 314,507 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.