Skip to main content
. 2011 Mar 4;84(3):370–378. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2011.10-0361

Table 4.

Bivariate associations based on adoption of Pureit

Pureit adopt (%) Non-adopt (%) P
Demographic and design variables N = 105 N = 407
Intervention 59 (56) 209 (51) 0.54
Self-help group membership 102 (97) 241 (59) < 0.001
SES tercile
Middle 39 (37) 132 (32) 0.004
Least poor 46 (44) 126 (31) 0.004
Toilet in compound 28 (27) 40 (10) < 0.001
Maternal education
Some/completed primary 27 (26) 124 (30) 0.43
At least some secondary 46 (44) 100 (25) < 0.001
Paternal education
Some/completed primary 34 (32) 150 (37) 0.53
At least some secondary 49 (47) 133 (33) 0.007
Friends own
Few 32 (30) 187 (46) < 0.001
Some/most 65 (62) 128 (31) < 0.001
Message drivers of adoption
Children 19 (18) 55 (14) 0.83
Teachers 31 (30) 111 (27) 0.60
Self-help group 101 (97) 270 (66) < 0.001
Family/friends 75 (71) 225 (55) 0.02
TV 73 (70) 180 (44) 0.001
Radio 1 (1) 32 (8) 0.08
Sales stalls and kiosks 13 (13) 28 (7) 0.01
School-based drivers of adoption among intervention communities (intervention schools only) N = 59 N = 209
Seen Pureit at school 50 (88) 159 (76) 0.05
Spoken to teacher at school 11 (19) 28 (13) 0.31
Tasted water from Pureit at school 10 (17) 26 (12) 0.37
Child brought water home 4 (7) 0 (0) < 0.001

SES = socio-economic status.