↓ Skip to main content

Shared latrines in Maputo, Mozambique: exploring emotional well-being and psychosocial stress

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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
Shared latrines in Maputo, Mozambique: exploring emotional well-being and psychosocial stress
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12914-018-0169-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tess Shiras, Oliver Cumming, Joe Brown, Bacelar Muneme, Rassul Nala, Robert Dreibelbis

Abstract

Approximately 18% of Sub-Saharan Africa's urban population relies on shared sanitation facilities, which are shared by one or more households. While there is growing recognition of sanitation's relationship with stress and well-being - particularly among women - most research has focused on rural populations and the transition from open defecation and/or unimproved latrines to private shared sanitation. This study explores sanitation-related stressors among users of both improved and unimproved shared sanitation facilities. This study was nested within the larger MapSan health impact trial (Trial Registration: NCT02362932). Participants were recruited from the control arm of the trial (Traditional Latrine (TL) users) and intervention arm, which received one of two improved shared sanitation facilities - Shared Latrines (SL) shared by up to 20 individuals and Community Sanitation Blocks (CSBs) shared by more than 20 individuals. Sampling was informed by a life stage perspective to reflect diversity in sanitation needs and experiences within the population. Data included 96 in-depth interviews, 7 focus group discussions, and 25 unstructured observations. Data collection and analysis followed a Grounded Theory approach, which was used to identify the key domains of sanitation-related stress among participants. A semi-structured tool was applied to all female interview transcripts to assess the frequency and severity of key stressors. Participants reported stress due to: lack of safety; lack of privacy; disgust about the latrine condition; and collective action failure in terms of managing the latrine, often causing neighborhood conflict or unhygienic sanitation conditions. Fewer SL and CSB users reported specific stress domains and - with the exception of perceived safety - reported fewer severe stressors. The leading cause of stress reduction due to the intervention was decreased disgust followed by increased privacy and safety. Our data suggest that "improved", shared facilities can reduce stress when proper maintenance and management systems are in place. Private, shared sanitation only had limited impact on users' perceptions of safety, particularly at night, suggesting that safety concerns extend beyond the physical latrine structure. Our research demonstrates that factors including latrine location and neighborhood violence are important determinants of safety perceptions and corresponding psychosocial stress.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 127 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 18%
Researcher 20 16%
Student > Master 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 5 4%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 44 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 14 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 8%
Environmental Science 10 8%
Social Sciences 9 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 54 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 10 April 2024.
All research outputs
#2,177,943
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,618
of 17,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,944
of 344,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#62
of 331 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,866 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 344,860 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 331 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.