Table 3.
Predictors of Latrine Ownership in Logistic Regression Analysis
| Model | B | SE | Wald X2 (1) | OR | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 4: significant context and RANAS factors from model 1 + 2 + 3 | |||||
| Context factors | |||||
| Relationship statusa | .545 | .388 | 1.969 | .58 | .27, 1.24 |
| Years at school | .188 | .070 | 7.247** | 1.21 | 1.05, 1.39 |
| Risk of flooding | −.351 | .128 | 7.546** | .70 | .55, .90 |
| Social dilemma | .046 | .131 | .123 | 1.04 | .81, 1.35 |
| Social capital (solidarity) | .110 | .093 | 1.411 | 1.12 | .93, 1.34 |
| Social capital (trust) | −.080 | .103 | .602 | .92 | .75, 1.13 |
| Social capital (social cohesion and inclusion) | .377 | .119 | 10.068** | 1.46 | 1.16, 1.84 |
| RANAS factors | |||||
| Vulnerability (personal general risk for diarrhea) | −.626 | .113 | 30.734*** | .54 | .43, .67 |
| Feeling more respected | −.381 | .141 | 7.327** | .68 | .52, .90 |
| Beliefs about costs and benefits (money, space, time) | −1.143 | .267 | 18.246*** | .32 | .19, .54 |
| Others’ behavior (community) | 1.176 | .141 | 69.105*** | 3.24 | 2.46, 4.28 |
| Others’ (dis)approval (personally important others’) | .544 | .161 | 11.479** | 1.72 | 1.26, 2.36 |
| Confidence in recovery of broken latrine | .994 | .199 | 25.029*** | 2.70 | 1.83, 3.99 |
| Communication | .155 | .136 | 1.297 | 1.17 | .89, 1.52 |
| Constant | −8.13 | 1.62 | 25.381*** | ||
Note. N = 598. For the overall model of significant context and psychosocial factors (Model 4) R2 = .74 (Nagelkerke). X2(15) = 468.19, p < .0005. Latrine ownership was coded ‘1’ and no latrine ownership was coded ‘0’.
aNo relationship as reference category;
OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; **P < .005; ***P < .0005