Table 3.
Questionnaire findings and water quality in the two regions of Burkina Faso, February 2015
| Children (n = 385) | [n (%)] | Plateau Central [n (%)] | Centre-Ouest [n (%)] |
|---|---|---|---|
| Selected KAP indicatorsa | |||
| Handwashingb | |||
| Before eating | 338 (87.8) | 164 (82.8) | 174 (93.1) |
| After eating | 55 (14.3) | 25 (12.6) | 30 (16.0) |
| After playing | 28 (7.3) | 12 (6.1) | 16 (8.6) |
| After defaecation | 85 (22.1) | 41 (20.7) | 44 (23.5) |
| Do not wash hands | 16 (4.2) | 15 (7.6) | 1 (0.5) |
| Water only | 344 (89.4) | 183 (92.4) | 161 (86.1) |
| Water and soap | 306 (79.5) | 153 (77.3) | 153 (81.8) |
| With ash | 12 (3.1) | 0 (0.0) | 12 (6.4) |
| With mud | 1 (0.3) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.5) |
| Hygienec | |||
| Lower category (1) | 56 (14.6) | 33 (16.7) | 23 (12.3) |
| Middle score (2) | 227 (59.0) | 119 (60.1) | 108 (57.7) |
| Best category (3) | 102 (26.4) | 46 (23.2) | 56 (30.0) |
| Sanitary practices at schoolk | |||
| Using latrines at school | 307 (79.7) | 181 (91.4) | 126 (67.4) |
| Open defaecation (fields, bush) | 71 (18.5) | 12 (6.1) | 59 (31.5) |
| Using latrines at home/at teachers’ house | 7 (1.8) | 5 (2.5) | 2 (1.1) |
| Drinking waterd | |||
| Drinking water from school | 322 (83.6) | 174 (87.9) | 148 (79.1) |
| Bringing drinking water from home | 239 (62.1) | 112 (56.6) | 127 (67.9) |
| Quality of water in children’s drinking cups (n = 113) | |||
| Coliform bacteriak | 101 (89.4) | 46 (80.7) | 55 (98.2) |
| Escherichia coli k | 55 (48.7) | 17 (29.8) | 38 (67.9) |
| Faecal streptococci | 101 (89.4) | 50 (87.7) | 51 (91.1) |
| Safe to drink without prior treatment | 3 (2.7) | 3 (5.3) | 0 (0.0) |
| Households (n = 385) | |||
| Household WASH characteristicse | |||
| Type of latrines used | |||
| Flush toilet (i) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| VIP latrinef (ii) | 14 (3.6) | 12 (6.1) | 2 (1.1) |
| Traditional pit latrine (iii) | 83 (21.6) | 65 (32.8) | 18 (9.6) |
| EcoSang (iv) | 60 (15.6) | 33 (16.7) | 27 (14.4) |
| Samplat latrine (v) | 15 (3.9) | 13 (6.6) | 2 (1.1) |
| No facilities/open defaecation (vi) | 213 (55.3) | 75 (37.9) | 138 (73.8) |
| Total improvedh (i, ii, iv, v) | 89 (23.1) | 58 (29.3) | 31 (16.6) |
| Total unimprovedi (iii, vi) | 296 (76.9) | 140 (70.7) | 156 (83.4) |
| Preferred source of drinking water during the rainy season | |||
| Private tab | 1 (0.3) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) |
| Shared tab | 1 (0.3) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) |
| Public tab | 25 (6.5) | 18 (9.1) | 7 (3.7) |
| Improved source | 4 (1.0) | 4 (2.1) | 0 (0.0) |
| Un-improved source | 8 (2.1) | 0 (0.0) | 8 (4.3) |
| Borehole water | 249 (64.6) | 161 (81.3) | 88 (47.1) |
| Collected rain water | 1 (0.3) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) |
| Surface water | 3 (0.8) | 1 (0.5) | 2 (1.1) |
| Wells | 87 (22.6) | 14 (7.1) | 73 (39.0) |
| Others | 6 (1.5) | 1 (0.5) | 5 (2.7) |
| Preferred source of drinking water during the dry season | |||
| Private tab | 1 (0.3) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) |
| Shared tab | 2 (0.5) | 2 (1.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Public tab | 25 (6.5) | 18 (9.1) | 7 (3.7) |
| Improved source | 4 (1.0) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (2.1) |
| Un-improved source | 9 (2.4) | 0 (0.0) | 9 (4.8) |
| Borehole water | 261 (67.8) | 168 (84.9) | 93 (49.7) |
| Surface water | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Wells | 81 (21.0) | 8 (4.0) | 73 (39.0) |
| Others | 2 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) |
| Household drinking water storage | |||
| Open | 278 (72.2) | 141 (71.2) | 137 (73.3) |
| Pot or canary | 290 (75.3) | 146 (73.7) | 144 (77.0) |
| Basin or bowl | 16 (4.2) | 2 (1.0) | 14 (7.5) |
| Canister (plastic jerrican) | 59 (15.3) | 38 (19.2) | 21 (11.2) |
| Others | 18 (4.7) | 11 (5.6) | 7 (3.7) |
| No storage | 2 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) |
| Household drinking water treated prior to consumptionjk | 69 (17.9) | 21 (10.6) | 48 (25.7) |
| Water quality of household drinking water (n = 95) | |||
| Coliform bacteria | 89 (93.7) | 42 (89.4) | 47 (97.9) |
| Escherichia coli k | 61 (64.2) | 23 (48.9) | 38 (79.2) |
| Faecal streptococci | 88 (92.6) | 42 (89.4) | 46 (95.8) |
| Safe to drink without prior treatment | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Water quality of community sources (n = 37) | |||
| Coliform bacteria | 13 (35.1) | 4 (22.4) | 9 (47.4) |
| Escherichia coli | 9 (24.3) | 0 (0.0) | 9 (47.4) |
| Faecal streptococci | 10 (27.0) | 2 (11.1) | 8 (42.1) |
| Safe to drink without prior treatment | 22 (59.5) | 12 (66.7) | 10 (52.6) |
aKnowledge, attitudes and practices
bMultiple responses were possible for the variables characterising the mode (how) and frequency (when) of handwashing
cA new variable for hygiene behaviour was created using factor analysis with the mode and frequency of handwashing. Children were classified into three categories with poor, middle and good hygiene behaviours
dMultiple responses were possible for the variables characterising the child’s drinking water consumption at school
eWater, sanitation, and hygiene
fVentilated improved pit (VIP) latrine is an improved type of pit latrine, which helps remove odours and prevent flies from breeding and escaping. Excreta are collected in a dry pit which has a vent pipe covered with a fly-proof screen at the top
gEcological sanitation (EcoSan) toilets are linked to a closed system that does not need water. The toilet is based on the principle of safely recycling excreta resources to create a valuable resource for agriculture
hThe improved sanitation category includes all sanitation facilities that hygienically separate human excreta from human contact; i.e. pit latrine with slab, VIP and EcoSan toilets
iThe unimproved sanitation category includes traditional pit latrines and no facilities (open defaecation)
jHouseholds having reported to treat their drinking water through filtration and sedimentation
kSignificant regional differences were found for children’s sanitary practices (dichotomised variable classified as using latrines vs. open defaecation, χ 2 = 4.67, df = 1, P = 0.03), water quality of children’s drinking water cups (coliform bacteria, χ 2 = 5.87, df = 1, P = 0.02; Escherichia coli, χ 2 = 15.51, df = 1, P < 0.001); household water treatment (P = 0.02); and water quality of household drinking water (Escherichia coli, χ 2 = 8.97, df = 7, P = 0.003) using mixed logistic regression models with random intercepts at the level of schools