Table 2.
Relationship between neighborhood (NH) sanitation and log10-transformed fecal coliform colony-forming units/toy ball (N = 428 HHs)
| Exposures | n (%)* | Mean (standard deviation) | Median | Univariable | Multivariable | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Difference in mean† (95% CI) | P value† | Difference in mean†‡ (95% CI)‡ | P-value†‡ | ||||
| Primary exposure: NH sanitation coverage | |||||||
| 1a. Proportion of improved sanitation coverage in the NH‖ | |||||||
| No improved sanitation | 204 (48) | 2.07 (1.45) | 1.90 | – | – | – | – |
| Up to 25% coverage | 80 (19) | 2.08 (1.20) | 2.14 | 0.01 (−0.37, 0.34) | 0.94 | −0.08 (−0.43, 0.27) | 0.67 |
| 26–50% coverage | 88 (21) | 2.30 (1.38) | 2.36 | 0.19 (−0.15, 0.54) | 0.26 | 0.14 (−0.2, 0.48) | 0.42 |
| 51–100% coverage | 56 (13) | 2.04 (1.26) | 1.90 | −0.07 (−0.48, 0.33) | 0.72 | 0.04 (−0.38, 0.46) | 0.84 |
| 1b. Improved sanitation coverage in the NH‖ | |||||||
| 100% coverage | 29 (7) | 1.99 (1.23) | 1.92 | −0.13 (−0.64, 0.39) | 0.63 | −0.10 (−0.63, 0.42) | 0.70 |
| < 100% coverage | 399 (93) | 2.12 (1.38) | 2.08 | – | – | – | – |
| Other HH variables‡ | |||||||
| 2. Improved sanitation access of target HH | |||||||
| Improved | 103 (24) | 1.85 (1.25) | 1.60 | −0.37 (−0.67, −0.07) | 0.02 | −0.35 (−0.68, −0.03) | 0.03 |
| Unimproved | 325 (76) | 2.20 (1.40) | 2.20 | – | – | – | – |
| 3. Number of goat feces pile in compound | |||||||
| No feces | 295 (69) | 2.04 (1.36) | 1.90 | – | – | – | – |
| 1–10 piles | 90 (21) | 2.19 (1.26) | 2.20 | 0.18 (−0.14, 0.51) | 0.30 | 0.2 (−0.13, 0.52) | 0.24 |
| > 10 piles | 43 (10) | 2.50 (1.62) | 2.20 | 0.50 (0.06, 0.94) | 0.03 | 0.31 (−0.13, 0.76) | 0.17 |
| 4. Presence of any goat feces in HH¶ | 96 (22) | 2.37 (1.44) | 2.38 | 0.35 (0.04, 0.67) | 0.03 | – | – |
| 5. Number of cow dung pile in compound | |||||||
| No cow dung | 187 (44) | 2.06 (1.37) | 1.90 | 0 | – | ||
| 1–10 cow dung | 153 (36) | 2.15 (1.33) | 2.20 | 0.10 (−0.20, 0.39) | 0.52 | – | – |
| 10 > cow dung | 87 (20) | 2.17 (1.45) | 2.33 | 0.14 (−0.21, 0.49) | 0.43 | – | – |
| 6. Number of cow dung pile in HH | |||||||
| No cow dung | 248 (58) | 2.06 (1.37) | 1.90 | 0 | – | – | – |
| 1–10 cow dung | 129 (30) | 2.09(1.38) | 2.20 | 0.04 (−0.25, 0.32) | 0.79 | 0.07 (−0.23, 0.36) | 0.66 |
| 10 > cow dung | 51 (12) | 2.42 (1.34) | 2.45 | 0.36 (−0.05, 0.77) | 0.08 | 0.37 (−0.06, 0.79) | 0.09 |
| 7. Number of poultry feces piles in the compound | |||||||
| ≤ 10 piles | 219 (51) | 2.11 (1.35) | 2.08 | – | – | – | – |
| 10 > piles | 209 (49) | 2.12 (1.39) | 2.08 | 0.02 (−0.23, 0.28) | 0.85 | – | – |
| 8. Number of poultry feces piles in HH¶ | |||||||
| No feces | 91 (21) | 1.20 (1.24) | 1.90 | 0 | – | – | – |
| 1–10 piles | 208 (49) | 2.13 (1.46) | 2.08 | 0.14 (−0.21, 0.48) | 0.43 | – | – |
| More than 10 piles | 129 (30) | 2.17 (1.30) | 2.08 | 0.18 (−0.19, 0.56) | 0.33 | – | – |
| 9. Presence of appropriate water drainage | 247 (58) | 2.03 (1.35) | 1.90 | −0.21 (−0.48, 0.05) | 0.11 | −0.3 (−0.57, −0.03) | 0.03 |
| 10. Presence of an appropriate solid waste disposal system | 10 (2.3) | 1.78 (2.00) | 2.05 | −0.32 (−1.18, 0.53) | 0.46 | – | – |
| 11. Hands/nails looked visibly clean | 65 (15) | 1.88 (1.34) | 1.90 | −0.30 (−0.66, 0.06) | 0.10 | −0.23 (−0.59, 0.14) | 0.22 |
| 12. Mother with any formal education | 355 (83) | 2.07 (1.36) | 1.92 | −0.26 (−0.61, 0.08) | 0.13 | −0.23 (−0.59, 0.14) | 0.22 |
| 13. HH belongs to the upper (richest) wealth quintile | 78 (18) | 1.88 (1.19) | 1.70 | −0.34 (−0.68, −0.01) | 0.05 | −0.12 (−0.49, 0.24) | 0.52 |
| 14. Change in time (hour) of sample collection as the day progresses | – | – | – | −0.17 (−0.28, −0.07) | 0.002 | −0.17 (−0.28, −0.06) | 0.002 |
| 15. Study site | |||||||
| Narshingdi district | 226 (53) | 2.28 (1.38) | 2.20 | 0.34 (0.05, 0.63) | 0.02 | 0.49 (0.21, 0.76) | 0.001 |
| Mymensingh district | 216 (48) | 1.90 (1.34) | – | – | – | – | – |
CI = confidence intervals; HH = household; NHs = neighboring households.
* Number with presented category.
† Adjusting for clustering at village.
‡ The estimates and associated 95% CIs for the other HH variables presented here are from the multivariable model with variable 1a (proportion of improved sanitation coverage in the NH, as the primary outcome).
‖ The variables included in the multivariable model includes improved sanitation access in the target HH, number of goat feces pile in compound, number of cow dung pile in HH, presence of appropriate water drainage, hands/nails looked visibly clean, mother with any formal education, HH belongs to upper (richest) wealth quintile, change in time (hour) of sample collection as the day progress, and study site.