Table 3.
Effect of the intervention on study outcomes
| Item | Control | Intervention | PD, % | 95% CI | APD% | 95% CI | ICC | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | ||||||
| Baseline | |||||||||
| Use of toilet by all household members (irrespective of apparent toilet use) | 328 | 87.0 | 303 | 83.4 | −4.9 | – | |||
| Endline | |||||||||
| Primary outcome | |||||||||
| Use of toilet by all household members | 1208 | 83.8 | 1275 | 90.0 | 6.3 | 1.1 / 11.4 | 5.0 | −0.1 / 10.1 | 0.14 |
| Secondary outcomes | |||||||||
| Individually reported toilet use (reported use not collapsed at household level) | 6174 | 85.1 | 6679 | 91.2 | 6.1 | 1.1 / 11.2 | 4.6 | −0.5 / 9.7 | 0.17 |
| Individually reported toilet use (physical activity tool) | 2253 | 80.7 | 2483 | 82.2 | 1.5 | −3.4 / 6.4 | – | – | 0.12 |
| Individually reported toilet use (physical activity tool) restricted to households also taking part in endline survey | 1636 | 82.8 | 1736 | 85.9 | 3.3 | −1.7 / 8.3 | 1.7 | −3.2 / 6.7 | 0.11 |
PD prevalence difference, calculated using linear regression (function: Gaussian, link: identity). Clustering at village level was adjusted for by using generalised estimating equations and robust standard errors. APD adjusted prevalence difference. PD was adjusted for asset index (continuous variable) and maximum male education level (dichotomised into primary or less vs secondary or higher)