Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), and Department for International Development-backed SHARE Research Consortium at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

BackgroundOpen defecation is widely practiced in India. To improve sanitation and promote better health, the Government of India (GOI) has instituted large scale sanitation programmes supporting construction of public and institutional toilets and extending financial subsidies for poor families in rural areas for building individual household latrines. Nevertheless, many household latrines in rural India, built with government subsidies and the facilitation and support of non-government organizations (NGO), remain unused. Literature on social, cultural and behavioural aspects that constrain latrine adoption and use in rural India is limited. This paper examines defecation patterns of different groups of people in rural areas of Odisha state in India to identify causes and determinants of latrine non-use, with a special focus on government-subsidized latrine owners, and shortcomings in household sanitation infrastructure built with government subsidies.MethodsAn exploratory study using qualitative methods was conducted in rural communities in Odisha state. Methods used were focus group discussions (FGDs), and observations of latrines and interviews with their owners. FGDs were held with frontline NGO sanitation program staff, and with community members, separately by caste, gender, latrine type, and age group. Data were analysed using a thematic framework and approach.ResultsGovernment subsidized latrines were mostly found unfinished. Many counted as complete per government standards for disbursement of financial subsidies to contracted NGOs were not accepted by their owners and termed as ‘incomplete’. These latrines lacked a roof, door, adequate walls and any provision for water supply in or near the cabin, whereas rural people had elaborate processes of cleansing with water post defecation, making presence of a nearby water source important. Habits, socialising, sanitation rituals and daily routines varying with caste, gender, marital status, age and lifestyle, also hindered the adoption of latrines. Interest in constructing latrines was observed among male heads for their female members especially a newlywed daughter-in-law, reflecting concerns for their privacy, security, and convenience. This paper elaborates on these different factors.ConclusionsFindings show that providing infrastructure does not ensure use when there are significant and culturally engrained behavioural barriers to using latrines. Future sanitation programmes in rural India need to focus on understanding and addressing these behavioural barriers.

BackgroundFaced with a massive shortfall in meeting sanitation targets, some governments have implemented campaigns that use subsidies focused on latrine construction to overcome income constraints and rapidly expand coverage. In settings like rural India where open defecation is common, this may result in sub-optimal compliance (use), thereby continuing to leave the population exposed to human excreta.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study to investigate latrine coverage and use among 20 villages (447 households, 1933 individuals) in Orissa, India where the Government of India’s Total Sanitation Campaign had been implemented at least three years previously. We defined coverage as the proportion of households that had a latrine; for use we identified the proportion of households with at least one reported user and among those, the extent of reported use by each member of the household.ResultsMean latrine coverage among the villages was 72% (compared to <10% in comparable villages in the same district where the Total Sanitation Campaign had not yet been implemented), though three of the villages had less than 50% coverage. Among these households with latrines, more than a third (39%) were not being used by any member of the household. Well over a third (37%) of the members of households with latrines reported never defecating in their latrines. Less than half (47%) of the members of such households reported using their latrines at all times for defecation. Combined with the 28% of households that did not have latrines, it appears that most defecation events in these communities are still practiced in the open.ConclusionA large-scale campaign to implement sanitation has achieved substantial gains in latrine coverage in this population. Nevertheless, gaps in coverage and widespread continuation of open defecation will result in continued exposure to human excreta, reducing the potential for health gains.

BackgroundAn estimated 2.5 billion people worldwide lack access to improved sanitation facilities. While large-scale programs in some countries have increased latrine coverage, they sometimes fail to ensure optimal latrine use, including the safe disposal of child feces, a significant source of exposure to fecal pathogens. We undertook a cross-sectional study to explore fecal disposal practices among children in rural Orissa, India in villages where the Government of India's Total Sanitation Campaign had been implemented at least three years prior to the study.Methods and FindingsWe conducted surveys with heads of 136 households with 145 children under 5 years of age in 20 villages. We describe defecation and feces disposal practices and explore associations between safe disposal and risk factors. Respondents reported that children commonly defecated on the ground, either inside the household (57.5%) for pre-ambulatory children or around the compound (55.2%) for ambulatory children. Twenty percent of pre-ambulatory children used potties and nappies; the same percentage of ambulatory children defecated in a latrine. While 78.6% of study children came from 106 households with a latrine, less than a quarter (22.8%) reported using them for disposal of child feces. Most child feces were deposited with other household waste, both for pre-ambulatory (67.5%) and ambulatory (58.1%) children. After restricting the analysis to households owning a latrine, the use of a nappy or potty was associated with safe disposal of feces (OR 6.72, 95%CI 1.02–44.38) though due to small sample size the regression could not adjust for confounders.ConclusionsIn the area surveyed, the Total Sanitation Campaign has not led to high levels of safe disposal of child feces. Further research is needed to identify the actual scope of this potential gap in programming, the health risk presented and interventions to minimize any adverse effect.

BackgroundWhile women and girls face special risks from lack of access to sanitation facilities, their ability to participate and influence household-level sanitation is not well understood. This paper examines the association between women's decision-making autonomy and latrine construction in rural areas of Odisha, India.MethodsWe conducted a mixed-method study among rural households in Puri district. This included a cross sectional survey among 475 randomly selected households. These were classified as either having a functional latrine, a non-functional latrine or no latrine at all. We also conducted 17 in-depth interviews and 9 focus group discussions among household members of these three categories of households.ResultsDecisions on the construction of household level sanitation facilities were made exclusively by the male head in 80% of households; in 11% the decision was made by men who consulted or otherwise involved women. In only 9% of households the decision was made by women. Households where women were more involved in general decision making processes were no more likely to build a latrine, compared to households where they were excluded from decisions. Qualitative research revealed that women’s non-involvement in sanitation decision making is attributed to their low socio-economic status and inability to influence the household’s financial decisions. Female heads lacked confidence to take decisions independently, and were dependent on their spouse or other male family members for most decisions. The study revealed the existence of power hierarchies and dynamics within households, which constrained female’s participation in decision-making processes regarding sanitation.ConclusionsThough governments and implementers emphasize women’s involvement in sanitation programmes, socio-cultural factors and community and household level dynamics often prevent women from participating in sanitation-related decisions. Measures are needed for strengthening sanitation policies and effective implementation of programmes to address gender power relations and familial relationships that influence latrine adoption and use.

BackgroundOpen defecation is widespread in rural India, and few households have piped water connections. While government and other efforts have increased toilet coverage in India, and evaluations found limited immediate impacts on health, longer-term effects have not been rigorously assessed.MethodsWe conducted a matched cohort study to assess the longer-term effectiveness of a combined household-level piped water and sanitation intervention implemented by Gram Vikas (an Indian NGO) in rural Odisha, India. Forty-five intervention villages were randomly selected from a list of those where implementation was previously completed at least 5 years before, and matched to 45 control villages. We conducted surveys and collected stool samples between June 2015 and October 2016 in households with a child <5 years of age (n = 2398). Health surveillance included diarrhoea (primary outcome), acute respiratory infection (ARI), soil-transmitted helminth infection, and anthropometry.ResultsIntervention villages had higher improved toilet coverage (85% vs 18%), and increased toilet use by adults (74% vs 13%) and child faeces disposal (35% vs 6%) compared with control villages. There was no intervention association with diarrhoea [adjusted OR (aOR): 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74–1.20] or ARI. Compared with controls, children in intervention villages had lower helminth infection (aOR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.18, 1.00) and improved height-for-age z scores (HAZ) (+0.17, 95% CI: 0.03–0.31).ConclusionsThis combined intervention, where household water connections were contingent on community-wide household toilet construction, was associated with improved HAZ, and reduced soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infection, though not reduced diarrhoea or ARI. Further research should explore the mechanism through which these heterogenous effects on health may occur.

IntroductionMonitoring of sanitation programs is often limited to sanitation access and coverage, with little emphasis on use of the facilities despite increasing evidence of widespread non-use.ObjectivesWe assessed patterns and determinants of individual latrine use over 12 months in a low- income rural study population that had recently received latrines as part of the Government of India’s Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) in coastal Puri district in Odisha, India.Materials and methodsWe surveyed 1938 individuals (>3 years) in 310 rural households with latrines from 25 villages over 12 months. Data collection rounds were timed to correspond with the seasons. The primary outcome was reported use by each member of the household over the prior 48 h. We classified use into three categories—“never”, “sometimes” and “always/usually”. We also assessed consistency of use over six days across the three seasons (dry cold, dry hot, rainy). We explored the association between individual and household-level variables and latrine use in any given season and longitudinally using multinomial logistic regression. We also inquired about reasons for non-use.ResultsOverall, latrine use was poor and inconsistent. The average response probability at any given round of never use was 43.5% (95% CI = 37.9, 49.1), sometimes use was 4.6% (95% CI = 3.8, 5.5), and always/usual use was 51.9% (95% CI = 46.2, 57.5). Only two-thirds of those who reported always/usually using a latrine in round one reported the same for all three rounds. Across all three rounds, the study population was about equally divided among those who reported never using the latrine (30.1%, 95% CI = 23.0, 37.2), sometimes using the latrine (33.2%, 95% CI = 28.3, 38.1) and always/usually using the latrine (36.8%, 95% CI = 31.8, 41.8). The reported likelihood of always/usually versus never using the latrine was significantly greater in the dry cold season (OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.18, 1.89, p = 0.001) and in the rainy season (OR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.07, 1.69, p = 0.012), than in the dry hot season.Across all three seasons, there was increased likelihood of always/usually and sometimes using the latrine versus never using it among females and where latrines had a door and roof. Older age groups, including those aged 41–59 years and 60+ years, and increase in household size were associated with a decreased likelihood of always/usually using the latrine versus never using it. The leading reason for non-use was a preference for open defecation.ConclusionResults highlight the low and inconsistent use of subsidized latrines built under the TSC in rural Odisha. This study identifies individual and household levels factors that may be used to target behavior change campaigns to drive consistent use of sanitation facilities by all.

Emerging qualitative research suggests women’s sanitation experiences may impact mental health. However, specific associations remain unclear. We aimed to determine if sanitation access and sanitation experiences were associated with mental health among women in rural Odisha, India. Using a cross-sectional design, we evaluated the association between sanitation access and sanitation experiences and selected mental health outcomes. Data were collected from 1347 randomly selected women across four life course stages in 60 rural communities (December 2014-February 2015). Our four primary outcomes included: mental well-being, and symptoms of anxiety, depression, and distress. The primary exposures were (1) access to a functional latrine within the household compound and (2) sanitation insecurity (SI), evaluated using a seven domain measure assessing women’s negative sanitation experiences and concerns. We used hierarchical linear modeling to determine associations between the exposures and mental health outcomes, adjusting for covariates (life stage, poverty, current health status, social support). Mean well-being scores were moderate and mean anxiety, depression, and distress scores were above a threshold indicating the potential presence of any of the three conditions. Access to a functional household latrine was associated with higher well-being scores, but not with anxiety, depression or distress. Women’s SI domains were associated with all four outcomes: four domains were significantly associated with lower well-being scores, two were significantly associated with higher anxiety scores, three were significantly associated with higher depression scores, and three were significantly associated with higher distress scores, all independent of functional household latrine access. Women in rural Odisha, India may suffer assaults to their well-being and have higher symptoms of anxiety, depression, and distress when urinating and defecating, even if they have an available facility. These findings suggest that sanitation-related interventions should consider how to accommodate women’s experiences beyond excreta management to comprehensively impact health.