↓ Skip to main content

Is there a difference in prevalence of helminths between households using ecological sanitation and those using traditional pit latrines? A latrine based cross sectional comparative study in Malawi

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Is there a difference in prevalence of helminths between households using ecological sanitation and those using traditional pit latrines? A latrine based cross sectional comparative study in Malawi
Published in
BMC Research Notes, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2519-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Save Kumwenda, Chisomo Msefula, Wilfred Kadewa, Yohane Diness, Charles Kato, Tracy Morse, Bagrey Ngwira

Abstract

Studies have shown that households using sludge from human excreta for agriculture are at an increased risk of soil transmitted helminths. However, while use of ecological sanitation (EcoSan) latrines is increasing in most African countries including Malawi, few studies have been done to check whether use of such sludge could potentially increase the prevalence of helminthic infections among household members as a results of exposure to faecal sludge/compared to use of traditional latrines. A cross sectional study was done targeting households using EcoSan and traditional pit latrines. Samples were collected from both types of latrines in Chikwawa (rural) and Blantyre (urban) districts. These two districts have a high number of EcoSan latrines in southern region of Malawi. 156 latrines were sampled (n = 95 traditional; n = 61 EcoSan), and processed following standard guidelines using modified triple floatation method. Identification of helminth ova (Ascaris lumbricoides, hookworms, Trichuris trichiura, Taenia spp. and Diphyllobothrium latum) was done using standard microscopy methods. The difference between the prevalence and mean concentration of helminths between the two types of latrines was tested using Chi Square and t test respectively. Of the total latrines tested, 85.9% (n = 134) had at least one species of helminth while 84.6% (n = 132) had at least a STH, with 82.0% (n = 50) in EcoSan and 86.3% (n = 82) in traditional pit latrines. There was no significant difference between the prevalence of helminths in EcoSan and traditional pit latrines [χ(2) = 0.43 (1), P = 0.5]. The prevalence of Ascaris lumbricoides was significantly higher in EcoSan than in traditional pit latrines [χ(2) = 5.44 (1) p = 0.02] while prevalence of hookworms was significantly higher in traditional pit latrines than in EcoSan latrines [χ(2) = 13.98 (1) p < 0.001]. The highest concentration of helminths per gram of faecal sludge was in traditional pit latrines [31.2 (95% CI 19.1-43.2)] than in EcoSan latrines [26.4 (95% CI 16.5-36.3)]. There was no significant difference between overall prevalence of helminths between households using EcoSan and those using traditional pit latrines. However, Ascaris lumbricoides was significantly higher in households using EcoSan latrines. EcoSan users need awareness on safe ways of handling faecal sludge in order to reduce chances of reinfection from Ascaris lumbricoides. Further research should be undertaken on household members to identify those infected and potential routes of infection to enable preventive targeting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 4%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 23 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 11 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 14%
Engineering 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 24 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 21 March 2018.
All research outputs
#13,322,189
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,638
of 4,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,515
of 317,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#25
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
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 317,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.