Latrine Utilization and Associated Factors Among Households in SebetaHawas Woreda, Oromia Special Zone, Ethiopia

Abstract

In developing regions almost half of the population does not have access to improved latrine facilities. In Ethiopia up to 60% of the current disease burden was attributable to poor sanitation. However, the information regarding latrine utilization was minimal in the study area. This study assessed the magnitude of latrine utilization and associated factors among households in SebetaHawas Woreda Oromia special zone, Ethiopia from June 1-20, 2019. Cross-sectional study design was conducted. Using interviewer administered semi-structured questionnaires and observational checklist; data were collected from 631 households by using stratification sampling technique. Then data were entered in to Epi-Info version 7 and analyzed using statistical package for social science (SPSS) version 21. Descriptive statistics were performed to analyze frequencies, percentages, mean and standard deviation to describe the study population. Using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression, independent variables with P-value of <0.25 was considered a candidate for the final multiple logistic regression model. The association was expressed in odds ratio with 95% confidence interval and P-value <0.05 were used as cut-off points to declare significance in the final model. A total of 631 households were assessed for their latrine utilization status with 100% of response rate. The latrine utilization was 68% ] in the study area. In multivariable analysis, respondents with age greater than or equal to 48 years [AOR: 6.24, 95%CI: 1.23-32.91)], collage and above [AOR: 8.02, 95%CI: 6.96-16.52)], family size greater than or equal to five [AOR: 0.51, 95%CI: 0.32 -0.82], households with no availability of hand washing facility [AOR: 0.36, 95%CI, 0.14-0.89)], knowledgeable towards the use of latrine [AOR: 0.07, 0.02-0.27)], and no feces observed around the pit hole [AOR: 4.37, 95%CI, 1.78-10.73)] were factors associated with latrine utilization. The magnitude of latrine utilization among households of SebetaHawas Woreda was low. Age, educational status, family size, availability of hand washing facility, knowledgeable towards the use of latrine, cleanliness of latrine were factors which affects latrine utilization. It needs attention to maximize 100% latrine utilization and zero open defecation.

Latrine utilization and associated factors among districts implementing and not-implementing community-led total sanitation and hygiene in East Wollega, Western Ethiopia: A comparative cross-sectional study

“…Household heads who were able to write and read used their latrine about 3.86 times more likely than their counterparts. Similar results were reported from the studies conducted in SebetaHawas Woreda [ 23 ], Laelai Maichew Woreda [ 42 ], Chencha [ 26 ], and Gurage zone [ 46 ]. This is explained by the fact that education can increase the knowledge about the diseases related to improper disposal of human wastes and lead to changes in latrine utilization behavior [ 22 ].…”

“…The overall latrine utilization prevalence in our study is lower than the reports of latrine utilization in Sebeta Hawas-68% [ 23 ], Mehal Meda town-90% [ 24 ], semi-urban areas of North Eastern Ethiopia-71.8% [ 37 ], Denbia district-86.8% [ 25 ], Aneded district-63% [ 44 ], Hulet Ejju Enessie Woreda-60.7% [ 41 ], Chencha district-60% [ 26 ], Wondo Genet district, South Ethiopia-83.1% [ 45 ], and Hawassa town [ 38 ]. The latrine utilization among CLTSH-implemented villages in this study was also lower than the one in Gurage Zone’s Community-Led Total Sanitation and Hygiene implemented kebeles-65.8% [ 46 ].…”

“…The latrine utilization among CLTSH-implemented villages in this study was also lower than the one in Gurage Zone’s Community-Led Total Sanitation and Hygiene implemented kebeles-65.8% [ 46 ]. The observed difference might be due to the difference in the way of latrine utilization measurement, and study settings as some of the above studies were conducted in urban and semi-urban areas [ 23 , 24 , 37 ]. In this regard, those households that had open pits without any form of the slab were categorized as not utilizing the latrine in our study because such latrines are unlikely to break the chain of disease transmission [ 40 ].…”

Latrine Utilization and Associated Factors Among Rural Households in Southwest Ethiopia: Risk, Attitude, Norms, Ability, and Self-Regulation Behavioral Model

“…The magnitude of latrine utilization in the study area (67.1%) was consistent with the study done in Gurage Zone, Ethiopia (65.8%) and Sebeta district, Oromia, Ethiopia (68%). 23,26 But it was higher than the study done in Takusa district, Northwest, Ethiopia (41.9%), East Gojjam zone (45.4%), and the study done at Tullo district, Eastern Ethiopia (56.1%). 27,28 Reason might be different in operational definition of the outcome variable, difference in the study period and study design.…”

“…A structured questionnaire and observational checklist was developed after reviewing relevant literatures. 13 , 14 , 16 , 20 , 22 , 23 The questions to assess psychosocial variables was adapted from RANAS, and from a other behavioral studies that applied the same model by which its applicability was confirmed in many previous studies. 16 , 24 , 25 Then 6 diploma data collectors (1 Environmental health and 5 Nurses) who have smart (android) phone, were collect the data by face to face with household head or housewife using a prepared tool by Open data kit (ODK) data collect, and latrine utilization was verified through observation of at least 2 signs from sign of latrine use.…”