Table 2.

Consistency of HWT use among households that self-reported performing HWT at baseline in the urban and rural communities

Characteristic	Rural		Urban
	n	%	n	%
Consistent reporting of HWT use in the baseline and HWT practices survey/IDI*	41	50.0	69	72.6
Consistent reporting of HWT method among those reporting use in both occasions	37	90.2	61	88.4
Consistent reporting in all five HWT reporting events†	2	2.8	13	23.2
Number of home visits with available treated water (based on self-report)†
Three	3	4.2	13	23.2
Two	0	0.0	3	5.4
Two and one do not know	2	2.8	1	1.8
One	16	22.5	16	28.6
None	50	70.4	23	41.1
Subgroup analysis- Claimed to have treated water on all three collection points:
Among reported daily HWT use‡	0	0.0	7	35.0
Among reported non-supplementers§	2	13.3	10	50.0
Among reported supplememters∥	0	0.0	1	4.6
Household that claimed chlorinating at baseline with FCR ≥ 0.2 mg/L at follow-up visits¶
First visit	1	1.45	19	22.5
Second visit	1	1.39	21	28.38
Third visit	4	5.88	17	27.8

FCR = free chlorine residue; HWT = household water treatment; IDI = in-depth interview.

^*Among households that completed both visits (U [N]: 95, R [N]: 82).

^†Among households that completed all five visits and had water available at all three points (U [N]: 56, R [N]: 71).

^‡Among households that had water at all three points and reported daily HWT use (U [N]: 20, R [N]: 15).

^§Among households that had water at all three points and reported to be non-supplementers (U [N]: 20, R [N]: 15).

^∥Among households that had water at all three points and reported to be supplementers (U [N]: 22, R [N]: 18).

^¶Among households that had water at all three points and reported to be supplementers (U [N]: 22, R [N]: 18).