Skip to main content
. 2019 Mar;222(2):270–282. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.11.005

Table 4.

Studies investigating the existence of community sanitation coverage thresholds for diarrhoea impacts.

citation location level of sanitation service provision community coverage threshold impact study design
Andres et al. (2014) India, rural basic sanitation services two thresholds: ∼30% (before 30% basically no change on diarrhoea) and ∼75% (around 50% of diarrhoea reduction after 75%) 47% diarrhoea reduction in children communities in a village with 100% sanitation coverage compared to children in communities with 0% coverage cross-sectional
Harris et al. (2017) Mali, rural sanitation facilities (including basic, shared and unimproved) no threshold (tested for 20%. 40% and 60% sanitation coverage), no association between increased sanitation coverage and diarrhoea cross-sectional
Jung et al. (2017b) various low-income basic sanitation services threshold at 60% 56% diarrhoea reduction at 100% community coverage with basic sanitation (OR 0.44 (0.29, 0.67)), 18% diarrhoea reduction < 60% coverage (OR 0.82 (0.77, 0.87)) cross-sectional (DHS surveys)
Larsen et al. (2017) various sanitation facilities (including improved and unimproved private facilities) threshold between 30% and 100% 6% diarrhoea reduction (AOR 0.94 (0.91–0.97)) for children with household-level sanitation access in communities with 100% vs. 1–30% coverage meta-analysis of survey data
Wolf et al. (2018a) various mainly basic sanitation services, depending on study threshold at ≥75% 45% diarrhoea reduction in high coverage studies versus 24% in low coverage studies (five studies with ≥85% community coverage (RR 0.55 (0.34, 0.91)) versus 16 studies ≤65% coverage (RR 0.76 (0.51, 1.13))) systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies

OR: odds ratio, AOR: adjusted odds ratio, RR: relative risk; basic sanitation includes improved sanitation facilities that are not shared between two or more households (WHO and UNICEF, 2017).