↓ Skip to main content

A socio-ecological analysis of barriers to the adoption, sustainablity and consistent use of sanitation facilities in rural Ethiopia

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
207 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
A socio-ecological analysis of barriers to the adoption, sustainablity and consistent use of sanitation facilities in rural Ethiopia
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4717-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fikralem Alemu, Abera Kumie, Girmay Medhin, Teshome Gebre, Phoebe Godfrey

Abstract

Despite evidence showing that access to and use of improved sanitation is associated with healthier households and communities, barriers influencing the adoption and sustainablity of sanitation facilities remain unclear. We conducted a qualitative case study to explore barriers influencing the adoption, sustainablity and consistent use of sanitation facilities in rural Ethiopia. A qualitative study was conducted in the rural district of Becho, in central Ethiopia, from June to August 2016. A socio-ecological model and Integrated Behavioural Model (IBM) for a Water Hygiene and Sanitation (WASH) framework were employed to design the study and analyse data. A total of 10 in-depth interviews (IDI) were conducted with latrine adopters (n = 3), latrine non-adopters (n = 3), health extension workers (n = 3) and the district WASH coordinator (n = 1). Eight Focus Group Discussions (FGD) were undertaken with 75 participants, of which 31 were women. The FGDs and IDIs were tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim and translated into English. The analysis was supported using Nvivo version 10 software. Barriers to sustained adoption and use of sanitation facilities were categorized into 1) individual level factors (e.g., past latrine experience, lack of demand and perceived high cost to improved latrines), 2) household level factors (e.g., unaffordability, lack of space and absence of a physically strong family member), 3) community level factors (e.g., lack of access to public latrines, lack of shared rules against open defecation, lack of financial access for the poor), and 4) societal level factors (e.g., lack of strong local leadership, flooding, soil conditions, lack of appropriate sanitation technology, lack of promotion and demand creation for improved latrines). The use of the socio-ecological model and IBM-WASH framework helped to achieve a better understanding of multi-level and multi-dimensional barriers to sustained latrine adoption. The results indicate that there is a need to consider interventions that address multi-level factors concurrently.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 207 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 12%
Researcher 20 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Student > Bachelor 12 6%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 70 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 14%
Social Sciences 21 10%
Environmental Science 20 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 8%
Engineering 11 5%
Other 29 14%
Unknown 81 39%
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 20 September 2017.
All research outputs
#18,572,036
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,954
of 14,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,649
of 316,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#138
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,986 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 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 316,290 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.