Table 4.
Comparison of prevalence for secondary CFM behaviors between intervention and control children at endline
| Intervention | Control | Difference | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | n (%) | N | n (%) | Percentage points (95% CI) | |||
| Safe practices along CFM exposure pathway* | |||||||
| Step 1. Child defecates on safe material | |||||||
| Child defecated on non-porous material that can be cleaned | 347 | 111 (32.0%) | 376 | 84 (22.3%) | 9.6% (1.4 to 17.9) + | ||
| Child defecated directly on ground in/near household | 347 | 121 (34.9%) | 376 | 192 (51.1%) | -16.2% (-23.3 to -9.1) | ||
| Step 2. Caregiver picks up feces with safe material | |||||||
| Caregiver used non-porous material to handle feces | 342 | 181 (52.9%) | 375 | 154 (41.1%) | 11.9% (0.8 to 22.9) + | ||
| Step 3. Caregiver safely disposes of feces into latrine | See Table 3 | ||||||
| Step 4. Caregiver safely manages material used to pick up feces (washes with water and soap, disposes in latrine) | |||||||
| If used non-porous material, caregiver washed with water and soap/disinfectant | 159 | 147 (92.5%) | 132 | 117 (88.6%) | 3.8% (-13.7 to 21.4) | ||
| Caregiver then disposed of wash water into latrine | 157 | 89 (56.7%) | 129 | 59 (45.7%) | 11.0% (-16.5 to 38.4) | ||
| If used cloth specifically, caregiver washed soiled cloth in a dedicated wash basin/container | 125 | 82 (65.6%) | 120 | 79 (65.8%) | -0.2% (-28.6 to 28.1) | ||
| If not immediately cleaned, caregiver stored soiled cloths in bucket/container with lid | 48 | 17 (35.4%) | 46 | 9 (19.6%) | 15.9% (-38.7 to 70.4) | ||
| If used porous, biodegradable material (leaves, straw, or paper), caregiver disposed of material into latrine | 106 | 30 (28.3%) | 164 | 19 (11.6%) | 16.7% (-18.0 to 51.5) | ||
| Step 5. Child anal cleansing is done in safe location† | |||||||
| Child bottom cleaned in latrine over pan or over latrine mat with tray or in bucket | 841 | 439 (52.2%) | 785 | 375 (47.8%) | 4.4% (-4.5 to 13.3) | ||
| Step 6. Caregiver and child wash hands with water and soap | |||||||
| Caregiver washed hands with water and soap | 647 | 588 (90.9%) | 605 | 529 (87.4%) | 3.4% (-1.9 to 8.8) | ||
| Child’s hands were washed with water and soap | 345 | 207 (60.0%) | 376 | 200 (53.2%) | 6.8% (-3.6 to 17.2) | ||
| Child washed hands after defecating in latrine | 497 | 452 (91.0%) | 409 | 369 (90.2%) | 0.7% (-5.9 to 7.3) | ||
| Consistency of safe practice in last week § | |||||||
| Child’s feces always ended up in latrine (caregiver safely disposed and/or child used latrine) | 828 | 604 (73.0%) | 778 | 487 (62.6%) | 10.4% (-0.5 to 21.2) | ||
| Safe material always used to handle child’s feces | 342 | 165 (48.3%) | 375 | 136 (36.3%) | 12.0% (1.2 to 22.8) | ||
*Practices are self-reported by caregiver and capture how the child’s feces were managed the last time the child defecated. Steps 1 to 3 are CFM practices reported on for children who did not use the latrine; steps 4 and 5 are hygiene practices reported on for all children. +Difference here can be attributed to intervention caregivers using the latrine mat with tray (n = 26) because the same proportion of caregivers in both study arms used each of the other safe (i.e. non-porous) materials. Safe materials included latrine mat with tray, only tray, cloth, child’s clothing, diapers, potty, shovel, hoe, and dustpan. In both study arms, cloth was the most common safe material used for what the child defecated on and to handle the feces. †Only 2 children did not have anal cleansing done after defecation. § After being asked about the last time the child defecated, caregivers were asked where else the child defecated and what other materials were used to handle the child’s feces in the past week in order to assess consistency of a safe practice