BioMed Research International

BioMed Research International / 2020 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 |Article ID 7310925 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/7310925

Ayele Mamo Abebe, Mesfin Wudu Kassaw, Abinet Dagnew Mekuria, Sisay Shewasinad Yehualshet, Endegena Abebe Fenta, "Latrine Utilization and Associated Factors in Mehal Meda Town in North Shewa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia, 2019", BioMed Research International, vol. 2020, Article ID 7310925, 9 pages, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/7310925

Latrine Utilization and Associated Factors in Mehal Meda Town in North Shewa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia, 2019

Academic Editor: Maria Stangou
Received12 Dec 2019
Revised19 Mar 2020
Accepted04 Jun 2020
Published19 Jun 2020

Abstract

Background. Worldwide lack of sanitation is a serious health risk, affecting billions of people around the world, particularly the poor and disadvantaged of people around the world. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the number of people who defecate remains the open field 215 million. According to the 2016 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Surveys report, 56% of the rural households use unimproved toilet facilities. One in every three households in the country has no toilet facility. However, achieving real gains in increasing latrine use and quality remained as a challenge. This study was used to assess the latrine utilization and associated factors in Mehal Meda town in North Shewa zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia, 2019. Result. In this study, a total of 558 participants were included. Out of households, 509 (91.2%) utilized their latrine facility. On the other way, 503 (98.8%) households utilized latrine regularly. Significant variables that were associated to latrine utilization were the occupational status of head of households, observing feces around the compound/latrine, duration of latrine utilization, shape and structure of latrine facility, latrine status during observation, and distance between water well and latrine. According to this study, the magnitude of latrine utilization in Mehal Meda district was 91.2%. It was lower than Ethiopia national expected target of MDGs (100%). Significant variables that were associated to latrine utilization were occupational status of head of households, observing feces around the compound/latrine, shape and structure of latrine facility, latrine status during observation, and distance between water well and latrine facility. Therefore, health education about latrine utilization and its advantage should be given for community in the study area.

1. Background

Latrine utilization is defined as the use of the latrine by all the family members in the households [1]. Approximately, 1.1 billion people did not use any facility at all and practiced open-defecation [1, 2]. Globally, about 2.3 billion people who still have no basic sanitation service either practice open defecation (892 million) [35]. Moreover, billions of people have continued their life without the basic sanitation services in the world [68].

In Sub-Saharan Africa (SAA) like Ethiopia, 76% of the rural population did not use a better-quality hygiene facility, and people were exposed for diarrheal diseases in high burden especially under five children [912]. The majority of households, 91% rural and 54% urban, use nonimproved latrine facilities [13, 14]. Based on other studies, the number of people practicing open defecation in southern Asia has declined moderately from 1990, but in Sub-Saharan Africa, the number of people practicing open defecate increased from then in 1990 (increased by 26%) [15, 16].

In Ethiopia, there was progress in reducing child mortality from 123 deaths of less than five years of children per 1,000 live births in 2005 [17]. In other rural studies, 56% of the rural households in Ethiopia use unimproved toilet facilities [1820]. The recent data Mini EDHS indicates that, in Ethiopia, more than half 55% of households (56.7% in rural and 4.4% in urban areas) access to unimproved sanitation [21]. The government of Ethiopia had set to achieve a national target of 100 percent sanitation coverage in both rural and urban areas and made different effort to achieve it by 2015 [2224].

As 2011 EDHS finding, the coverage latrine utilization in SNNP, Amhara, Tigray, and Oromia was 56%, 46%, 41%, and 40%, respectively [25]. Similarly, in the study done in Aneded district, the level of latrine utilization was 63% [26]. Also, in the study done in Laelai Maichew Woreda, the age categories ranges from 36 to 50 years had shown significant association to the use of latrine [27].

On the other side, in a study done SNNPRS, participants who had clean latrine facilities were 1.2 fold higher to use than those with unclean once [28] and 1.5 times more likely to have a larger family than nonadopting neighbors [29]. Similarly, a study conducted in Hulet Ejju revealed that 20% of the households have utilized latrine [30]. But there is no previous study in this study area about latrine utilization. Therefore, this study is aimed to assess latrine utilization and associated factors in Mehal Meda town in North Shewa zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia, 2019.

2. Methods and Materials

2.1. Study Area and Study Period

This cross-sectional study was conducted in Mehal Meda town district is located at 361 km north east of Addis Ababa and about 180 km north of the Debre Birhan town from January 15 to January 30, 2019. There are 4 kebeles in the district. In 2011, the town administration office report total population is about 40394, and the total number of households is 10,069. All households that had latrine facilities in Mehal Meda town were the source of population.

2.2. Sample Size

Sample size was calculated using a single population proportion formula. The following assumption was taken to calculate the sample: [31], , and .

The sample size was 558 by using 1.5 design effect and adding 10% nonresponse rate.

2.3. Sampling Procedure

The multistage sampling method was employed. Mehal Meda town has 4 kebeles. Then, by using a simple random sampling technique, two kebeles were selected from those kebeles. Households selected using systematic random sampling. The sampling interval () was gained by dividing each selected Kebele’s household number to the sample size, so / until we got 558 Households (Figure 1).

3. Schematic Presentation of Sampling Procedure

3.1. Data Collection Tool and Procedure

An interview using a structured questionnaire was used by adapted from previous similar literatures [16, 28, 32]. Pretest was done on 5% () in nonselected kebeles. Data collectors and supervisors had got training for one day on how they collect the data. The principal investigators were strictly following the data collection every day.

3.2. Data Quality Assurance

Questionnaire was prepared in English version and translated in to Amharic and back to English to check its consistency. It was checked by senior researchers, and it was pretested on 5% of similar households. The collected data was checked for completeness and finally monitored the overall quality of data collection by the principal investigators.

3.3. Data Processing and Analysis

Data were checked for completeness and entered in to SPSS software version 22 for data analysis. Frequency and table used to describe the study population in relation to the relevant variables. Odds ratio with their 95% of CI was computed, and variables having value less than 0.05 in the multiple logistic regression models were considered as significantly associated with the dependent variable.

4. Result

4.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

The response rate of this study was 100%, and the majority of participants were found in the age group of 27-35. Mostly, 413 (74%) were males. Regarding of religion, 537 heads of households (96.2%) were Orthodox Christiane, whereas 549 (98.4%) heads of households were Amhara in ethnicity (Table 1).


VariablesCategoryFrequencyPercent

Age18-26417.3
27-3515728.1
36-4413123.5
45-5314726.3
=>548214.7

SexMale41374.0
Female14526.0

Marital statusNever married458.1
Married38669.2
Divorced/separated8615.4
Widowed417.3

ReligionOrthodox53796.2
Protestant213.8

EthnicityAmhara54998.4
Oromo91.6

Age of family membersAge of males >=5 yrs.11821.1
Age of females >=5 yrs14726.3
Both males and females age >=5 yrs23942.8
Age of 2-5 years children549.7

4.2. Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents

In this study, 176 (31.5% %) heads of households had diploma and above educational status, and 127 (22.8%) heads of households attended grades 9-12. About the occupational status of heads of households, 287 (51.4%) had private work, whereas 236 (42.3%) were government employees. (Table 2).


VariablesCategoryFrequencyPercent

Educational status of head householdIlliterate325.7
Can read and write11821.1
Grades 1-810518.8
Grades 9-1212722.8
Diploma and above17631.5

Occupation of head householdFarmer356.3
Government employee23642.3
Private28751.4

Family monthly income=<200023642.3
2001-350012422.2
=>350119835.5

Family size=<323041.2
=>432858.8

Presence of under five children in householdsYes18332.8
No37567.2

4.3. Latrine Condition and Feces Disposal Characteristics of Respondents

From the heads of households, 246 (44.1%) utilized latrine below one year. Based on this study, 202 (36.2%) were rectangular metal sheet, and 160 (28.7%) latrines had rectangular hat shape. From the observed households, 472 (84.6%) had no shown feces around the compound. On the other way, 503 (90%) households utilized latrine regularly, and 526 (94.3%) households had no handwashing facility for latrine (within 3 meters). About the cleanness of latrine, 337 (60.4%) latrines were clean (Table 3).


VariablesCategoryFrequencyPercent

Duration of using latrineBelow 1 year24644.1
1-3 years8815.8
Above 3 years22440.1

Shape and structure of latrine facilityTraditional hat12021.5
Rectangular hat16028.7
Rectangular metal sheet20236.2
Irregular structure and shape7613.6

Observation of any feces around the compound/latrineYes8615.4
No47284.6

Observation of uncovered foot-path to latrineYes112.0
No54798.02

Observation of latrine statusGood18933.9
Fair21438.4
Bad15527.8

Status of latrine utilizationUtilized50991.2
Not utilized498.8

Frequency of latrine usage()Regularly used50390
Irregularly used61.2

Type of latrineFlush/pour flush to septic tank/sewer line285.0
Traditional pit latrine with cemented slab or stone slab42776.5
Traditional pit latrine with wood log and earth cover9216.5
Composting112.0

Availability of hand washing facility for latrine (within 3 meters)Yes325.7
No52694.3

A vent pipe for the latrineYes234.1
No53595.9

Cleanliness of latrine facilityYes33760.4
No22139.6

Arrangement of the latrinePrivate latrine/inside the living house234.1
Private latrine/outside the living house47084.2
Shared with other households/communal274.8
Shared with the public386.8

Latrine affected by natural disasterYes325.7
No52694.3

Latrine accessible to allYes50991.2
No498.8

Splash of urine or water on the latrine slab/floorYes33560.0
No22340.0

4.4. Behavioral and Environmental Factors

The majority of heads of households, 250 (44.8%), claimed to wash their hands after toilet use, whereas 72 (12.9%) heads of households washed their hands during at four critical times. Five hundred thirty-four households (95.7%) lived near to health center with a distance of below 5 km. Similarly, 545 (97.7%) households lived near to the health post with a distance of below 5 km (Table 4).


VariablesCategoryFrequencyPercent

Hand washing timeAfter toilet use25044.8
After care of the child12121.7
Before food making and before child feeding11520.6
During at four critical time7212.9

Distance between health center and village (households)Below 5 km53495.7
Between 5-20 km244.3

Distance between health post and village (households)Below 5 km54597.7
Between 5-20 km132.3

Distance between latrine and the houseBelow 6 m53495.7
Between 6 and 12 m244.3

Having water well in householdYes20837.3
No35062.7

Distance between water well and latrine facilityBelow 15 m28951.8
Between 15 and 20 m26948.2

4.5. Factors Associated with Latrine Utilization

In bivariate logistic regression analysis, 14 variables were significantly associated with latrine utilization. However, in multivariable binary logistic regression analysis, educational status of household’s head, occupational status of household’s head, duration of latrine utilization, cleanness of latrine, latrine status during observation, and distance between water well and latrine facility were significantly associated with latrine utilization with a value <0.05.

Concerning the educational status, the illiterate household heads were 21 [, 95% CI: 1.382, 78.479] times more likely to use than those who have diploma and above educational status.

According to this study, household leaders whose work was farmer and government workers were 23 [, 95% CI: 2.283, 54.734] and 10 [, 95% CI: 2.354, 45.121] times more likely to use latrine than those who have private work, respectively.

Based on this study, the duration of latrine utilizing was 1-3 years were 78.2% less likely to use than those who have 3 years and above duration of use [, 95% CI: 0.061, 0.771]. On the other hand, the clean latrines were 9 [, 95% CI: 2.919, 26.802] times more likely to use latrine than the counters.

According to this study, households that had good and fair latrine facilities were 25 [, 95% CI: 6.268, 103.633] and 14 [, 95% CI: 4.233, 49.253] times more likely to utilize latrine than those who had bad latrine facilities. The households that have water well with a distance of below 15 meter from latrine facility were 5 [, 95% CI: 1.622, 12.312] times more likely used than the counter (Table 5).


VariablesLatrine utilization
YesNot valueCOR (95% CI) valueAOR (95% CI)

Marital status
 Never married43211
 Married357290.4560.573 (0.132, 2.484)0.2540.300 (0.038,2.378)
 Divorced70160.0400.203 (0.045, 0.929)0.1380.188 (0.021, 1.709)
 Widowed3920.9240.907 (0.122, 6.751)0.8841.257 (0.059, 26.769)
Educational status of household’s head
 Illiterate3110.6321.671 (0.204, 13.66).02820.65 (1.382, 78.479)
 Can read and write104140.040.40 (0.167, 0.958).3901.937 (0.429,8.748)
 Grades 1-895100.1610.512 (0.201, 1.304).2312.808 (0.519, 15.183)
 Grades 9-12112150.0380.402 (0.170, 0.951).5081.728 (0.342, 8.722)
 Diploma and above167911
Occupation of household’s head
 Farmer3410.1244.88 (0.648, 36.725)0.00822.651 (2.283, 54.734)
 Government employee224120.0042.677 (1.359, 5.273)0.00210.305 (2.354, 45.121)
 Private2513611
Types of latrine
 Flush/pour flush to septic tank/sewer line4240.3492.250 (0.412, 12.284)0.9471.142 (0.023, 55.699)
 Traditional pit latrine with cemented slab or stone slab244030.0096.297 (1.569, 25.264)0.2536.758 (0.255, 179.049)
 Traditional pit latrine with wood log and earth cover18740.5511.542 (0.371, 6.400)0.5562.684 (0.100, 72.135)
 Composting3811
Arrangement of latrine
 Private latrine/inside the living house1220.0438.963 (1.073, 74.904)0.06712.135 (0.841, 175.009)
 Private latrine/outside the living house304400.0015.975 (2.705, 13.201)0.0853.267 (0850, 12.550)
 Shared with other households/communal7200.7891.164 (1.164, 0.384, 3.532)0.5000.531 (0.085, 3.33)
 Shared with the public112711
Duration of latrine utilizing
 Below 1 year236100.0013.371 (1.598, 7.112)0.1622.265 (0.721, 7.121)
 1-3 years77110.0011.000 (0.474, 2.108)0.0180.218 (0.061, 0.771)
 Above 3 years1962811
Cleanness of latrine
 Yes103270.0017.07 (3.418, 14.367).0018.846 (2.919, 26.802)
 No3918211
Splash of urine or water around the slab/latrine floor
 Yes3729811
 No122110.0232.183 (1.112, 4.286)01970.481 (0.159, 1.462)
Latrine affected by natural disaster
 Yes72511
 No424840.013.227 (1.318, 7.900)0.8190.815 (0.141, 4.714)
Observing feces around the latrine
 Yes59270.0010.107 (0.057, 0.200)0.7970857 (0.266, 2.767)
 No4502211
Shape and structure of latrine facility
 Traditional hat108120.4961.364 (0.558, 3.332)0.2232.378 (0.590, 9.581)
 Rectangular hat143170.5691.275 (0.554, 2.934)0.7411.261 (0.318, 4.992)
 Rectangular metal sheet192100.0232.909 (1.159, 7.300)0.3351.926 (0.508, 7.325)
 Irregular structure and shape661011
Latrine status during observation
 Good18450.00112.372 (4.74, 32.29)0.00125.486 (6.268, 103.633)
 Fair20950.00114.053 (5.39,36.64)0.00114.440 (4.233, 49.253)
 Bad1163911
Distance between water well and latrine facility
 Below 15 m278110.0014.157 (2.078, 8.317)0.0044.469 (1.622, 12.312)
 B/n 15 and 20 m2313811

5. Discussion

According to this study, the latrine utilization of Mehal Meda town was 91.2%. It was a little bit more than the result of community-based cross-sectional studies in Hulet Ejju Enessie, Aneded district, and in SNNPRS, Southern Ethiopia [26, 28, 30]. The reason could be attributed to the method and areas of the study.

According to this study, five hundred thirty-four households (95.7%) lived near to health center with a distance of below 5 kms. Five hundred thirty-four (95.7%) households had latrine with a distance of below 6 meter. Similarly, in Aneded district study, 55.6% participants lived near to health center with a distance of below 5 km [26]. The possible reason may be due to participants who have enough water sources and who were nearest to the health center/post were used latrine clearly than far from health center/health post/low water source.

Base on this study, 250 (44.8%) heads of households claimed to wash their hands after toilet use, whereas 72 (12.9%) heads of households washed their hands during at four critical times. This finding was lower than the studies done in different parts of Ethiopia [26, 32, 33].

According to this study, the illiterate household heads were 21 [, 95% CI: 1.382 78.479] times more likely to use than those who have diploma and above educational status. This result was not supported with the studies done in Aneded district, Laelai Maichew Woreda, and SNNPRS [2628]. This may be due to the illiterate people may give more attention to use latrine than the educated people.

According to this study, household leaders whose work was farmer and government workers were 23 [, 95% CI: 2.283, 54.734)] and 10 [, 95% CI: 2.354, 45.121] times more likely to use latrine than those who have private work, respectively. This variable was not shown its association in other studies.

Based on this study, the duration of latrine utilizing was 1-3 years were 78.2% less likely to use than those who have 3 years and above duration of use [, 95% CI: 0.061, 0.771]. This variable had not shown its association in other studies.

According to our study, the participants who have clean latrines were 9 [, 95% CI: 2.919, 26.802] times more likely to use latrine than the counters. This study was in lined with a study done in SNNPRS [27]. The possible reason may be due to the clean latrine more attractive and comfortable to use than the unclean toilets.

According to this study, households that had good and fair latrine facilities were 25 [, 95% CI: 6.268, 103.633] and 14 [, 95% CI: 4.233, 49.253] times more likely to utilize latrine than those who had bad latrine facilities. This study was supported by the study done in Aneded district in Ethiopia [26]. This may be due to the reason that the good and fair latrine was attractive and clean to use by families than the counters.

This study revealed that the households that have water well with a distance of below 15 meters from latrine facility were 5 [, 95% CI: 1.622, 12.312] times more likely used than the counter. This variable was not shown its association in other studies. The possible reason may be due to participants who have enough water sources.

6. Conclusion

Based on this study, the latrine utilization of Mehal Meda district was 91.2%. It was lower than Ethiopia national expected target of MDGs (100%). Occupational status of head of households, observing feces around the compound/latrine, duration of latrine utilization, shape and structure of latrine facility, latrine status during observation, and distance between water well and latrine facility had a significant association with latrine utilization. Therefore, health education should be given on associated findings to get full coverage latrine utilization in this woreda.

6.1. Limitation of the Study

The study design is cross-sectional. So, it has its drawback (this does not show which one was come first effect or cause).

Abbreviations

AOR:Adjusted odds ratio
CI:Confidence interval
DALYs:Disability –adjusted life years
EDHS:Ethiopian demographic health survey
MDG’s:Millennium development goal
OD:Open defecation
OR:Odds ratio
SNNP:Southern nations, nationalities, and people
SPSS:Statistical package for social science
SSA:Sub Sahara Africa
UNICEF:United nation international Children’s emergency fund
WASH:Water, sanitation and hygiene
WHO:World Health Organization.

Data Availability

All data are accessed in this manuscript.

Ethical Approval

Ethical clearance gained from Debre Birhan health science college research committee. Supportive Letter gained from Zonal health office to all selected kebeles administrative office to get their cooperative letter to show for selected mother during the data collection. Each study participant adequately informed about the purpose, method, and anticipated benefit and risk of the study by their data collector. Respondents had the right to respond or refuse to interview. Written consent found from study participants. All the information given by respondents was used for research purposes only and confidentiality and privacy kept by omitting the name of the respondents during the data collection procedure.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ Contributions

Ayele wrote the research, developed the questionnaire, analyzed the data, and wrote the paper and interpreting of the findings as well as joining on preparing the manuscript.

All authors supervised the data collection, contributed to interpreting the findings, trained data collectors, and joined on preparing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Debre Berhan university and Amhara Regional Health Bureau for providing sponsoring ship. All study participants are thanked for their cooperation during sample collection.

References

  1. WHO/UNICEF, Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water, WHO/UNICEF JMP, Geneva/ New York, Switzerland/USA, 2010.
  2. Bill & Gates foundation, Water, Hygiene & Sanitation-Strategy Overview, Global Development program, Washington, 2012.
  3. World Health Organization, Sanitation Safety Planning – Manual for Safe Use and Disposal of Wastewater, Greywater and Excreta, Geneva, Switzerland, 2015, http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/ssp-manual/en/.
  4. D. I. Galan, S.-S. Kim, and J. P. Graham, “Exploring changes in open defecation prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa based on national level indices,” BMC Public Health, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 527, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. UNICEF, Water, sanitation and hygiene, annual results report 2016, 2016, https://www.unicef.org/publicpartnerships/files/2016arr_wash.pdf.
  6. WHO/10 facts on sanitation, 2014, http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/sanitation/facts/en/index1.html.
  7. A. Prüss, D. Kay, L. Fewtrell, and J. Bartram, “Estimating the Burden of Disease from Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene at a Global Level,” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 110, no. 5, pp. 537–542, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. World Health Organization, WHO | Facts and figures: Water, sanitation and hygiene links to health, 2004.
  9. P. Eduardo, “Affairs of Rural water and sanitation assessing impacts, Netherlands,” Evaluation insight, vol. 2, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  10. Plan International, Ethiopia Report on a CLTSH Plan International Ethiopia, ROSSA and SPA Projects Adama, 2014.
  11. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Health, To Enable 100% Adoption of Improved Hygiene and Sanitation, National Hygiene and Sanitation Strategy, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2005.
  12. B. Mengistie and Y. A. W. Berhane, “Prevalence of diarrhea and associated risk factors among children under-five years of age in Eastern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study,” Open Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 446–453, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. UNICEF JWa, Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation: Jenave, WHO and UNICEF, Geneva, 2014.
  14. K. Kema, I. Semali, S. Mkuwa et al., “Factors affecting the utilization of improved ventilated latrines among communities in Mtwara Rural District, Tanzania,” The Pan African medical journal, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–4, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  15. Central Statistical Agency [Ethiopia] and ORC Macro, Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2005, Central Statistical Agency and ORC Macro, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Calverton, Maryland, USA, 2006.
  16. Central Statistical Agency (CSA) [Ethiopia] and ICF, Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey, Key Indicators Report, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Rockville, Maryland, USA, 2016.
  17. Ministry of Health, National Hygiene and Sanitation Strategy, Ministry of health, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2005.
  18. E. G. Kefeni and W. W. Yallew, “Communal latrine utilization and associated factors in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a community-based cross-sectional study,” Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 319–324, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. Mini EDHS, CSA, Ethiopia mini demographic and health survey (EDHS), July, Addis Ababa, pp. 13-14, 2014.
  20. EMoHHI, Health Sector Development Program IV, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Health, Addis Ababa, 2010.
  21. Ethiopia FMoH, Implementation Guideline for CLTSH Program and verification guideline, Federal Ministry of Health Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2012.
  22. Mohoeea, “CLTSH Verification and certification protocol,” Hygiene, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  23. UNICEF, Sanitation Priority Country Factsheet Ethiopia, Sanitation Priority Country Factsheet UNICEF, Ethiopia, 2014.
  24. G. Gebremedhin, D. Tetemke, M. Gebremedhin et al., “Factors associated with latrine utilization among model and non-model families in Laelai Maichew Woreda, Aksum, Tigray, Ethiopia: comparative community based study,” BMC Research Notes, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 586, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. T. Chanie, M. Gedefaw, and K. Ketema, “Latrine utilization and associated factors in rural community of Aneded district, North West Ethiopia, 2014,” Journal of Community Medicine & Health Education, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 1–12, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. M. Meka and D. Gashaw, Utilization of latrines and factors affecting its use in SNNPRS, Southern Ethiopia, 2008.
  27. R. O'Loughlin, G. Fentie, B. Flannery, and P. M. Emerson, “Follow-up of a low cost, latrine promotion program in district of Amhara, Ethiopia: characteristics of early adopters and non-adopters,” Tropical Medicine & International Health, vol. 9, pp. 1406–1415, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  28. A. Anteneh and A. Kumie, “Assessment of the impact of latrine utilization on diarrheal diseases in the rural community of Hulet Ejju Enessie Woreda. East Gojjam, Amhara region,” Ethiopian Journal of Health Development, vol. 24, pp. 110–118, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  29. H. C. Koyra, M. M. Sorato, Y. S. Unasho, and Z. Z. Kanche, “Latrine utilization and associated factors in rural Community of Chencha District, southern Ethiopia: a community based cross-sectional study,” American Journal of Public Health Research, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 98–104, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. UNICEF, Progress on CLTSH - findings from a national review of rural sanitation in Ethiopia: WASH learning note, 2016.
  31. Y. T. Yimam, K. A. Gelaye, and D. H. Chercos, “Latrine utilization and associated factors among people living in rural areas of Denbia district, Northwest Ethiopia, 2013, a cross-sectional study,” Pan African Medical Journal, vol. 18, p. 334, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. Ministry of Health, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Health Sector Development Program IV, pp. 17-18, 2010.
  33. A. B. Belachew, M. B. Abrha, Z. A. Gebrezgi, and D. Y. Tekle, “Availability and utilization of sanitation facilities in Enderta district, Tigray, Ethiopia,” Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. E219–E225, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2020 Ayele Mamo Abebe et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views330
Downloads150
Citations

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.