国际标准期刊号: 2161-0711

社区医学与健康教育

开放获取

我们集团组织了 3000 多个全球系列会议 每年在美国、欧洲和美国举办的活动亚洲得到 1000 多个科学协会的支持 并出版了 700+ 开放获取期刊包含超过50000名知名人士、知名科学家担任编委会成员。

开放获取期刊获得更多读者和引用
700 种期刊 15,000,000 名读者 每份期刊 获得 25,000 多名读者

索引于
  • 哥白尼索引
  • 谷歌学术
  • 夏尔巴·罗密欧
  • Genamics 期刊搜索
  • 安全点亮
  • 参考搜索
  • 哈姆达大学
  • 亚利桑那州EBSCO
  • OCLC-世界猫
  • 普布隆斯
  • 日内瓦医学教育与研究基金会
  • 欧洲酒吧
  • ICMJE
分享此页面

抽象的

Latrine Utilization and Associated Factors in Rural Community of Aneded District, North West Ethiopia, 2014

Chanie T, Gedefaw M, Ketema K

Background: Proper disposal of human excreta remains a challenge especially in low income countries including Ethiopia. About 80% of the disease burden is related to poor sanitation and hygiene in the country. Cognizant of challenges, health extension program has been widely implemented longer. Latrine facility coverage of study area was higher but its utilization remained lower. Level of latrine utilization and factors associated with latrine utilization of the study area were not known. Therefore, evidences were required to show the current situation of latrine utilization in the study area.
Objective: The main objective of this study was to assess level of latrine utilization by households and associated factors in Aneded District, East Gojam Zone, Northwest Ethiopia.
Methods: A community based cross-sectional study was conducted from March 8 to April 9 /2014. Semistructured questionnaires and simple structured observation checklist to confirm evidences were data collection tools. Data was analyzed using SPSS version 16. Possible associations were assessed using logistic regression, and strength of association was measured using odds ratio at p-value <0.05 and 95% confidence interval. Result: The response rate was 99.8%, and the mean age of head of households was 39.25(± 12.56 SD). The level of latrine utilization in rural community of Aneded district was 63%. Significantly associated factors for latrine utilization in the district were the following:
Clean latrine facility (AOR: 4.1, 95%CI [1.7,10.0], bad latrine facility (AOR: 0.2, 95% CI[0.5,0.9]), presence of children in the household (AOR: 2.5, 95%CI [1.0,6.0]), traditional hat latrine facility (AOR: 7.4, 95%CI [1.1, 49.0]), and age of families (AOR: 9.1, 95%CI [1.8,45]).
Conclusion and recommendation: Latrine utilization in the study area was far from expected national target of 100% in MDGs. Not all constructed latrine facilities were used. Factors such as bad latrine facility and cleanliness of latrine facilities still need additional efforts. Health education should be given intensively to communities focusing on behavioral change communication, and good status and cleanliness of latrine facilities to improve its utilization.