Skip to main content
BioMed Research International logoLink to BioMed Research International
. 2020 Jun 18;2020:7310925. doi: 10.1155/2020/7310925

Latrine Utilization and Associated Factors in Mehal Meda Town in North Shewa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia, 2019

Ayele Mamo Abebe 1,, Mesfin Wudu Kassaw 2, Abinet Dagnew Mekuria 3, Sisay Shewasinad Yehualshet 4, Endegena Abebe Fenta 5
PMCID: PMC7321497  PMID: 32685523

Abstract

Background

Worldwide lack of sanitation is a serious health risk, affecting billions of people around the world, particularly the poor and disadvantaged of people around the world. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the number of people who defecate remains the open field 215 million. According to the 2016 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Surveys report, 56% of the rural households use unimproved toilet facilities. One in every three households in the country has no toilet facility. However, achieving real gains in increasing latrine use and quality remained as a challenge. This study was used to assess the latrine utilization and associated factors in Mehal Meda town in North Shewa zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia, 2019.

Result

In this study, a total of 558 participants were included. Out of households, 509 (91.2%) utilized their latrine facility. On the other way, 503 (98.8%) households utilized latrine regularly. Significant variables that were associated to latrine utilization were the occupational status of head of households, observing feces around the compound/latrine, duration of latrine utilization, shape and structure of latrine facility, latrine status during observation, and distance between water well and latrine. According to this study, the magnitude of latrine utilization in Mehal Meda district was 91.2%. It was lower than Ethiopia national expected target of MDGs (100%). Significant variables that were associated to latrine utilization were occupational status of head of households, observing feces around the compound/latrine, shape and structure of latrine facility, latrine status during observation, and distance between water well and latrine facility. Therefore, health education about latrine utilization and its advantage should be given for community in the study area.

1. Background

Latrine utilization is defined as the use of the latrine by all the family members in the households [1]. Approximately, 1.1 billion people did not use any facility at all and practiced open-defecation [1, 2]. Globally, about 2.3 billion people who still have no basic sanitation service either practice open defecation (892 million) [35]. Moreover, billions of people have continued their life without the basic sanitation services in the world [68].

In Sub-Saharan Africa (SAA) like Ethiopia, 76% of the rural population did not use a better-quality hygiene facility, and people were exposed for diarrheal diseases in high burden especially under five children [912]. The majority of households, 91% rural and 54% urban, use nonimproved latrine facilities [13, 14]. Based on other studies, the number of people practicing open defecation in southern Asia has declined moderately from 1990, but in Sub-Saharan Africa, the number of people practicing open defecate increased from then in 1990 (increased by 26%) [15, 16].

In Ethiopia, there was progress in reducing child mortality from 123 deaths of less than five years of children per 1,000 live births in 2005 [17]. In other rural studies, 56% of the rural households in Ethiopia use unimproved toilet facilities [1820]. The recent data Mini EDHS indicates that, in Ethiopia, more than half 55% of households (56.7% in rural and 4.4% in urban areas) access to unimproved sanitation [21]. The government of Ethiopia had set to achieve a national target of 100 percent sanitation coverage in both rural and urban areas and made different effort to achieve it by 2015 [2224].

As 2011 EDHS finding, the coverage latrine utilization in SNNP, Amhara, Tigray, and Oromia was 56%, 46%, 41%, and 40%, respectively [25]. Similarly, in the study done in Aneded district, the level of latrine utilization was 63% [26]. Also, in the study done in Laelai Maichew Woreda, the age categories ranges from 36 to 50 years had shown significant association to the use of latrine [27].

On the other side, in a study done SNNPRS, participants who had clean latrine facilities were 1.2 fold higher to use than those with unclean once [28] and 1.5 times more likely to have a larger family than nonadopting neighbors [29]. Similarly, a study conducted in Hulet Ejju revealed that 20% of the households have utilized latrine [30]. But there is no previous study in this study area about latrine utilization. Therefore, this study is aimed to assess latrine utilization and associated factors in Mehal Meda town in North Shewa zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia, 2019.

2. Methods and Materials

2.1. Study Area and Study Period

This cross-sectional study was conducted in Mehal Meda town district is located at 361 km north east of Addis Ababa and about 180 km north of the Debre Birhan town from January 15 to January 30, 2019. There are 4 kebeles in the district. In 2011, the town administration office report total population is about 40394, and the total number of households is 10,069. All households that had latrine facilities in Mehal Meda town were the source of population.

2.2. Sample Size

Sample size was calculated using a single population proportion formula. The following assumption was taken to calculate the sample: P = 67.4% [31], confidence interval (CI) = 95%, and marginal error (D) = 5%.

n=Za/22P1Pd2=1.9620.6740.3260.052=338 (1)

The sample size was 558 by using 1.5 design effect and adding 10% nonresponse rate.

2.3. Sampling Procedure

The multistage sampling method was employed. Mehal Meda town has 4 kebeles. Then, by using a simple random sampling technique, two kebeles were selected from those kebeles. Households selected using systematic random sampling. The sampling interval (K) was gained by dividing each selected Kebele's household number to the sample size, so k = N/n = every 6th household visited until we got 558 Households (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Schematic representation of sampling procedure for assessment of latrine utilization and associated factors in Mehal Meda town in North Shewa zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia, 2019.

3. Schematic Presentation of Sampling Procedure

3.1. Data Collection Tool and Procedure

An interview using a structured questionnaire was used by adapted from previous similar literatures [16, 28, 32]. Pretest was done on 5% (n = 28) in nonselected kebeles. Data collectors and supervisors had got training for one day on how they collect the data. The principal investigators were strictly following the data collection every day.

3.2. Data Quality Assurance

Questionnaire was prepared in English version and translated in to Amharic and back to English to check its consistency. It was checked by senior researchers, and it was pretested on 5% of similar households. The collected data was checked for completeness and finally monitored the overall quality of data collection by the principal investigators.

3.3. Data Processing and Analysis

Data were checked for completeness and entered in to SPSS software version 22 for data analysis. Frequency and table used to describe the study population in relation to the relevant variables. Odds ratio with their 95% of CI was computed, and variables having p value less than 0.05 in the multiple logistic regression models were considered as significantly associated with the dependent variable.

4. Result

4.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

The response rate of this study was 100%, and the majority of participants were found in the age group of 27-35. Mostly, 413 (74%) were males. Regarding of religion, 537 heads of households (96.2%) were Orthodox Christiane, whereas 549 (98.4%) heads of households were Amhara in ethnicity (Table 1).

Table 1.

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents in Mehal Meda town, North Shewa, Ethiopia, 2019 (N = 558).

Variables Category Frequency Percent
Age 18-26 41 7.3
27-35 157 28.1
36-44 131 23.5
45-53 147 26.3
=>54 82 14.7

Sex Male 413 74.0
Female 145 26.0

Marital status Never married 45 8.1
Married 386 69.2
Divorced/separated 86 15.4
Widowed 41 7.3

Religion Orthodox 537 96.2
Protestant 21 3.8

Ethnicity Amhara 549 98.4
Oromo 9 1.6

Age of family members Age of males >=5 yrs. 118 21.1
Age of females >=5 yrs 147 26.3
Both males and females age >=5 yrs 239 42.8
Age of 2-5 years children 54 9.7

4.2. Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents

In this study, 176 (31.5% %) heads of households had diploma and above educational status, and 127 (22.8%) heads of households attended grades 9-12. About the occupational status of heads of households, 287 (51.4%) had private work, whereas 236 (42.3%) were government employees. (Table 2).

Table 2.

Socio-economic characteristics of respondents in Mehal Meda town, North Shewa, Ethiopia, 2019 (N = 558).

Variables Category Frequency Percent
Educational status of head household Illiterate 32 5.7
Can read and write 118 21.1
Grades 1-8 105 18.8
Grades 9-12 127 22.8
Diploma and above 176 31.5

Occupation of head household Farmer 35 6.3
Government employee 236 42.3
Private 287 51.4

Family monthly income =<2000 236 42.3
2001-3500 124 22.2
=>3501 198 35.5

Family size =<3 230 41.2
=>4 328 58.8

Presence of under five children in households Yes 183 32.8
No 375 67.2

4.3. Latrine Condition and Feces Disposal Characteristics of Respondents

From the heads of households, 246 (44.1%) utilized latrine below one year. Based on this study, 202 (36.2%) were rectangular metal sheet, and 160 (28.7%) latrines had rectangular hat shape. From the observed households, 472 (84.6%) had no shown feces around the compound. On the other way, 503 (90%) households utilized latrine regularly, and 526 (94.3%) households had no handwashing facility for latrine (within 3 meters). About the cleanness of latrine, 337 (60.4%) latrines were clean (Table 3).

Table 3.

Latrine condition and feces disposal characteristics of respondent in Mehal Meda town, North Shewa, Amhara, Ethiopia, 2019.

Variables Category Frequency Percent
Duration of using latrine Below 1 year 246 44.1
1-3 years 88 15.8
Above 3 years 224 40.1

Shape and structure of latrine facility Traditional hat 120 21.5
Rectangular hat 160 28.7
Rectangular metal sheet 202 36.2
Irregular structure and shape 76 13.6

Observation of any feces around the compound/latrine Yes 86 15.4
No 472 84.6

Observation of uncovered foot-path to latrine Yes 11 2.0
No 547 98.02

Observation of latrine status Good 189 33.9
Fair 214 38.4
Bad 155 27.8

Status of latrine utilization Utilized 509 91.2
Not utilized 49 8.8

Frequency of latrine usage(N = 509) Regularly used 503 90
Irregularly used 6 1.2

Type of latrine Flush/pour flush to septic tank/sewer line 28 5.0
Traditional pit latrine with cemented slab or stone slab 427 76.5
Traditional pit latrine with wood log and earth cover 92 16.5
Composting 11 2.0

Availability of hand washing facility for latrine (within 3 meters) Yes 32 5.7
No 526 94.3

A vent pipe for the latrine Yes 23 4.1
No 535 95.9

Cleanliness of latrine facility Yes 337 60.4
No 221 39.6

Arrangement of the latrine Private latrine/inside the living house 23 4.1
Private latrine/outside the living house 470 84.2
Shared with other households/communal 27 4.8
Shared with the public 38 6.8

Latrine affected by natural disaster Yes 32 5.7
No 526 94.3

Latrine accessible to all Yes 509 91.2
No 49 8.8

Splash of urine or water on the latrine slab/floor Yes 335 60.0
No 223 40.0

4.4. Behavioral and Environmental Factors

The majority of heads of households, 250 (44.8%), claimed to wash their hands after toilet use, whereas 72 (12.9%) heads of households washed their hands during at four critical times. Five hundred thirty-four households (95.7%) lived near to health center with a distance of below 5 km. Similarly, 545 (97.7%) households lived near to the health post with a distance of below 5 km (Table 4).

Table 4.

Behavioral and environmental factors of respondents in Mehal Meda town North Shewa, Amhara, Ethiopia, 2019 (N = 558).

Variables Category Frequency Percent
Hand washing time After toilet use 250 44.8
After care of the child 121 21.7
Before food making and before child feeding 115 20.6
During at four critical time 72 12.9

Distance between health center and village (households) Below 5 km 534 95.7
Between 5-20 km 24 4.3

Distance between health post and village (households) Below 5 km 545 97.7
Between 5-20 km 13 2.3

Distance between latrine and the house Below 6 m 534 95.7
Between 6 and 12 m 24 4.3

Having water well in household Yes 208 37.3
No 350 62.7

Distance between water well and latrine facility Below 15 m 289 51.8
Between 15 and 20 m 269 48.2

4.5. Factors Associated with Latrine Utilization

In bivariate logistic regression analysis, 14 variables were significantly associated with latrine utilization. However, in multivariable binary logistic regression analysis, educational status of household's head, occupational status of household's head, duration of latrine utilization, cleanness of latrine, latrine status during observation, and distance between water well and latrine facility were significantly associated with latrine utilization with a p value <0.05.

Concerning the educational status, the illiterate household heads were 21 [AOR = 20.65, 95% CI: 1.382, 78.479] times more likely to use than those who have diploma and above educational status.

According to this study, household leaders whose work was farmer and government workers were 23 [AOR = 22.651, 95% CI: 2.283, 54.734] and 10 [AOR = 10.305, 95% CI: 2.354, 45.121] times more likely to use latrine than those who have private work, respectively.

Based on this study, the duration of latrine utilizing was 1-3 years were 78.2% less likely to use than those who have 3 years and above duration of use [AOR = 0.218, 95% CI: 0.061, 0.771]. On the other hand, the clean latrines were 9 [AOR = 8.846, 95% CI: 2.919, 26.802] times more likely to use latrine than the counters.

According to this study, households that had good and fair latrine facilities were 25 [AOR = 25.486, 95% CI: 6.268, 103.633] and 14 [AOR = 14.440, 95% CI: 4.233, 49.253] times more likely to utilize latrine than those who had bad latrine facilities. The households that have water well with a distance of below 15 meter from latrine facility were 5 [AOR = 4.469, 95% CI: 1.622, 12.312] times more likely used than the counter (Table 5).

Table 5.

Factors associated with latrine utilization in Mehal Meda town, North Shewa, Amhara, Ethiopia, 2019 (N = 558).

Variables Latrine utilization
Yes Not p value COR (95% CI) p value AOR (95% CI)
Marital status
 Never married 43 2 1 1
 Married 357 29 0.456 0.573 (0.132, 2.484) 0.254 0.300 (0.038,2.378)
 Divorced 70 16 0.040 0.203 (0.045, 0.929) 0.138 0.188 (0.021, 1.709)
 Widowed 39 2 0.924 0.907 (0.122, 6.751) 0.884 1.257 (0.059, 26.769)
Educational status of household's head
 Illiterate 31 1 0.632 1.671 (0.204, 13.66) .028 20.65 (1.382, 78.479)
 Can read and write 104 14 0.04 0.40 (0.167, 0.958) .390 1.937 (0.429,8.748)
 Grades 1-8 95 10 0.161 0.512 (0.201, 1.304) .231 2.808 (0.519, 15.183)
 Grades 9-12 112 15 0.038 0.402 (0.170, 0.951) .508 1.728 (0.342, 8.722)
 Diploma and above 167 9 1 1
Occupation of household's head
 Farmer 34 1 0.124 4.88 (0.648, 36.725) 0.008 22.651 (2.283, 54.734)
 Government employee 224 12 0.004 2.677 (1.359, 5.273) 0.002 10.305 (2.354, 45.121)
 Private 251 36 1 1
Types of latrine
 Flush/pour flush to septic tank/sewer line 4 24 0.349 2.250 (0.412, 12.284) 0.947 1.142 (0.023, 55.699)
 Traditional pit latrine with cemented slab or stone slab 24 403 0.009 6.297 (1.569, 25.264) 0.253 6.758 (0.255, 179.049)
 Traditional pit latrine with wood log and earth cover 18 74 0.551 1.542 (0.371, 6.400) 0.556 2.684 (0.100, 72.135)
 Composting 3 8 1 1
Arrangement of latrine
 Private latrine/inside the living house 1 22 0.043 8.963 (1.073, 74.904) 0.067 12.135 (0.841, 175.009)
 Private latrine/outside the living house 30 440 0.001 5.975 (2.705, 13.201) 0.085 3.267 (0850, 12.550)
 Shared with other households/communal 7 20 0.789 1.164 (1.164, 0.384, 3.532) 0.500 0.531 (0.085, 3.33)
 Shared with the public 11 27 1 1
Duration of latrine utilizing
 Below 1 year 236 10 0.001 3.371 (1.598, 7.112) 0.162 2.265 (0.721, 7.121)
 1-3 years 77 11 0.001 1.000 (0.474, 2.108) 0.018 0.218 (0.061, 0.771)
 Above 3 years 196 28 1 1
Cleanness of latrine
 Yes 10 327 0.001 7.07 (3.418, 14.367) .001 8.846 (2.919, 26.802)
 No 39 182 1 1
Splash of urine or water around the slab/latrine floor
 Yes 37 298 1 1
 No 12 211 0.023 2.183 (1.112, 4.286) 0197 0.481 (0.159, 1.462)
Latrine affected by natural disaster
 Yes 7 25 1 1
 No 42 484 0.01 3.227 (1.318, 7.900) 0.819 0.815 (0.141, 4.714)
Observing feces around the latrine
 Yes 59 27 0.001 0.107 (0.057, 0.200) 0.797 0857 (0.266, 2.767)
 No 450 22 1 1
Shape and structure of latrine facility
 Traditional hat 108 12 0.496 1.364 (0.558, 3.332) 0.223 2.378 (0.590, 9.581)
 Rectangular hat 143 17 0.569 1.275 (0.554, 2.934) 0.741 1.261 (0.318, 4.992)
 Rectangular metal sheet 192 10 0.023 2.909 (1.159, 7.300) 0.335 1.926 (0.508, 7.325)
 Irregular structure and shape 66 10 1 1
Latrine status during observation
 Good 184 5 0.001 12.372 (4.74, 32.29) 0.001 25.486 (6.268, 103.633)
 Fair 209 5 0.001 14.053 (5.39,36.64) 0.001 14.440 (4.233, 49.253)
 Bad 116 39 1 1
Distance between water well and latrine facility
 Below 15 m 278 11 0.001 4.157 (2.078, 8.317) 0.004 4.469 (1.622, 12.312)
 B/n 15 and 20 m 231 38 1 1

5. Discussion

According to this study, the latrine utilization of Mehal Meda town was 91.2%. It was a little bit more than the result of community-based cross-sectional studies in Hulet Ejju Enessie, Aneded district, and in SNNPRS, Southern Ethiopia [26, 28, 30]. The reason could be attributed to the method and areas of the study.

According to this study, five hundred thirty-four households (95.7%) lived near to health center with a distance of below 5 kms. Five hundred thirty-four (95.7%) households had latrine with a distance of below 6 meter. Similarly, in Aneded district study, 55.6% participants lived near to health center with a distance of below 5 km [26]. The possible reason may be due to participants who have enough water sources and who were nearest to the health center/post were used latrine clearly than far from health center/health post/low water source.

Base on this study, 250 (44.8%) heads of households claimed to wash their hands after toilet use, whereas 72 (12.9%) heads of households washed their hands during at four critical times. This finding was lower than the studies done in different parts of Ethiopia [26, 32, 33].

According to this study, the illiterate household heads were 21 [AOR = 20.65, 95% CI: 1.382 78.479] times more likely to use than those who have diploma and above educational status. This result was not supported with the studies done in Aneded district, Laelai Maichew Woreda, and SNNPRS [2628]. This may be due to the illiterate people may give more attention to use latrine than the educated people.

According to this study, household leaders whose work was farmer and government workers were 23 [AOR = 22.651, 95% CI: 2.283, 54.734)] and 10 [AOR = 10.305, 95% CI: 2.354, 45.121] times more likely to use latrine than those who have private work, respectively. This variable was not shown its association in other studies.

Based on this study, the duration of latrine utilizing was 1-3 years were 78.2% less likely to use than those who have 3 years and above duration of use [AOR = 0.218, 95% CI: 0.061, 0.771]. This variable had not shown its association in other studies.

According to our study, the participants who have clean latrines were 9 [AOR = 8.846, 95% CI: 2.919, 26.802] times more likely to use latrine than the counters. This study was in lined with a study done in SNNPRS [27]. The possible reason may be due to the clean latrine more attractive and comfortable to use than the unclean toilets.

According to this study, households that had good and fair latrine facilities were 25 [AOR = 25.486, 95% CI: 6.268, 103.633] and 14 [AOR = 14.440, 95% CI: 4.233, 49.253] times more likely to utilize latrine than those who had bad latrine facilities. This study was supported by the study done in Aneded district in Ethiopia [26]. This may be due to the reason that the good and fair latrine was attractive and clean to use by families than the counters.

This study revealed that the households that have water well with a distance of below 15 meters from latrine facility were 5 [AOR = 4.469, 95% CI: 1.622, 12.312] times more likely used than the counter. This variable was not shown its association in other studies. The possible reason may be due to participants who have enough water sources.

6. Conclusion

Based on this study, the latrine utilization of Mehal Meda district was 91.2%. It was lower than Ethiopia national expected target of MDGs (100%). Occupational status of head of households, observing feces around the compound/latrine, duration of latrine utilization, shape and structure of latrine facility, latrine status during observation, and distance between water well and latrine facility had a significant association with latrine utilization. Therefore, health education should be given on associated findings to get full coverage latrine utilization in this woreda.

6.1. Limitation of the Study

The study design is cross-sectional. So, it has its drawback (this does not show which one was come first effect or cause).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Debre Berhan university and Amhara Regional Health Bureau for providing sponsoring ship. All study participants are thanked for their cooperation during sample collection.

Abbreviations

AOR:

Adjusted odds ratio

CI:

Confidence interval

DALYs:

Disability –adjusted life years

EDHS:

Ethiopian demographic health survey

MDG's:

Millennium development goal

OD:

Open defecation

OR:

Odds ratio

SNNP:

Southern nations, nationalities, and people

SPSS:

Statistical package for social science

SSA:

Sub Sahara Africa

UNICEF:

United nation international Children's emergency fund

WASH:

Water, sanitation and hygiene

WHO:

World Health Organization.

Data Availability

All data are accessed in this manuscript.

Ethical Approval

Ethical clearance gained from Debre Birhan health science college research committee. Supportive Letter gained from Zonal health office to all selected kebeles administrative office to get their cooperative letter to show for selected mother during the data collection. Each study participant adequately informed about the purpose, method, and anticipated benefit and risk of the study by their data collector. Respondents had the right to respond or refuse to interview. Written consent found from study participants. All the information given by respondents was used for research purposes only and confidentiality and privacy kept by omitting the name of the respondents during the data collection procedure.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' Contributions

Ayele wrote the research, developed the questionnaire, analyzed the data, and wrote the paper and interpreting of the findings as well as joining on preparing the manuscript.

All authors supervised the data collection, contributed to interpreting the findings, trained data collectors, and joined on preparing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

References

  • 1.WHO/UNICEF. Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water. Geneva/ New York, Switzerland/USA: WHO/UNICEF JMP; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bill & Gates foundation. Water, Hygiene & Sanitation-Strategy Overview. Washington: Global Development program; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.World Health Organization. Sanitation Safety Planning – Manual for Safe Use and Disposal of Wastewater, Greywater and Excreta. Geneva, Switzerland: 2015. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/ssp-manual/en/ [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Galan D. I., Kim S.-S., Graham J. P. Exploring changes in open defecation prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa based on national level indices. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):p. 527. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.UNICEF. Water, sanitation and hygiene, annual results report 2016. 2016, https://www.unicef.org/publicpartnerships/files/2016arr_wash.pdf.
  • 6.WHO/10 facts on sanitation. 2014. http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/sanitation/facts/en/index1.html.
  • 7.Prüss A., Kay D., Fewtrell L., Bartram J. Estimating the Burden of Disease from Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene at a Global Level. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2002;110(5):537–542. doi: 10.1289/ehp.110-1240845. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.World Health Organization. WHO | Facts and figures: Water, sanitation and hygiene links to health. 2004.
  • 9.Eduardo P. Affairs of Rural water and sanitation assessing impacts, Netherlands. Evaluation insight. 2012;2 [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Plan International. Ethiopia Report on a CLTSH Plan International Ethiopia, ROSSA and SPA Projects Adama. 2014
  • 11.Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Health. To Enable 100% Adoption of Improved Hygiene and Sanitation. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: National Hygiene and Sanitation Strategy; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mengistie B., Berhane Y. A. W. Prevalence of diarrhea and associated risk factors among children under-five years of age in Eastern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. Open Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2013;3(7):446–453. doi: 10.4236/ojpm.2013.37060. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.UNICEF JWa. Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation: Jenave. Geneva: WHO and UNICEF; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kema K., Semali I., Mkuwa S., et al. Factors affecting the utilization of improved ventilated latrines among communities in Mtwara Rural District, Tanzania. The Pan African medical journal. 2012;13(1):1–4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Central Statistical Agency [Ethiopia] and ORC Macro. Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2005. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Calverton, Maryland, USA: Central Statistical Agency and ORC Macro; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Central Statistical Agency (CSA) [Ethiopia] and ICF. Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: Key Indicators Report; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ministry of Health. National Hygiene and Sanitation Strategy. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ministry of health; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kefeni E. G., Yallew W. W. Communal latrine utilization and associated factors in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a community-based cross-sectional study. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development. 2018;8(2):319–324. doi: 10.2166/washdev.2018.098. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Mini EDHS, CSA. Ethiopia mini demographic and health survey (EDHS), July, Addis Ababa. 2014. pp. 13–14.
  • 20.EMoHHI. Health Sector Development Program IV. Addis Ababa: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Health; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ethiopia FMoH. Implementation Guideline for CLTSH Program and verification guideline. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Federal Ministry of Health Ethiopia; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hae H., editor. Mohoeea. CLTSH Verification and certification protocol. Hygiene. 2012.
  • 23.UNICEF. Sanitation Priority Country Factsheet Ethiopia. Ethiopia: Sanitation Priority Country Factsheet UNICEF; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Gebremedhin G., Tetemke D., Gebremedhin M., et al. Factors associated with latrine utilization among model and non-model families in Laelai Maichew Woreda, Aksum, Tigray, Ethiopia: comparative community based study. BMC Research Notes. 2018;11(1):p. 586. doi: 10.1186/s13104-018-3683-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chanie T., Gedefaw M., Ketema K. Latrine utilization and associated factors in rural community of Aneded district, North West Ethiopia, 2014. Journal of Community Medicine & Health Education. 2016;6(5):1–12. doi: 10.4172/2161-0711.1000478. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Meka M., Gashaw D. Utilization of latrines and factors affecting its use in SNNPRS, Southern Ethiopia. 2008.
  • 27.O'Loughlin R., Fentie G., Flannery B., Emerson P. M. Follow-up of a low cost, latrine promotion program in district of Amhara, Ethiopia: characteristics of early adopters and non-adopters. Tropical Medicine & International Health. 2006;9:1406–1415. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2006.01689.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Anteneh A., Kumie A. Assessment of the impact of latrine utilization on diarrheal diseases in the rural community of Hulet Ejju Enessie Woreda. East Gojjam, Amhara region. Ethiopian Journal of Health Development. 2010;24:110–118. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Koyra H. C., Sorato M. M., Unasho Y. S., Kanche Z. Z. Latrine utilization and associated factors in rural Community of Chencha District, southern Ethiopia: a community based cross-sectional study. American Journal of Public Health Research. 2017;5(4):98–104. doi: 10.12691/ajphr-5-4-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.UNICEF. Progress on CLTSH - findings from a national review of rural sanitation in Ethiopia: WASH learning note. 2016.
  • 31.Yimam Y. T., Gelaye K. A., Chercos D. H. Latrine utilization and associated factors among people living in rural areas of Denbia district, Northwest Ethiopia, 2013, a cross-sectional study. Pan African Medical Journal. 2014;18:p. 334. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2014.18.334.4206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ministry of Health. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Health Sector Development Program IV. 2010. pp. 17–18.
  • 33.Belachew A. B., Abrha M. B., Gebrezgi Z. A., Tekle D. Y. Availability and utilization of sanitation facilities in Enderta district, Tigray, Ethiopia. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene. 2018;59(3):E219–E225. doi: 10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2018.59.3.826. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

All data are accessed in this manuscript.


Articles from BioMed Research International are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES