Table 4 Bivariate analysis: Characteristics associated with hand cleanliness (clean palms and finger pads) for mothers/caregivers and young children (N = 1692 households for cross sectional survey, N = 997 households for structured observation)
From: Observed hand cleanliness and other measures of handwashing behavior in rural Bangladesh
Characteristics | Caregivers' with this characteristic and clean palms and finger pads % (n) | Caregivers' without this characteristic and clean palms and finger pads % (n) | Adjusted OR* (95% CI), p value | Children with this characteristic and clean palms and finger pads % (n) | Children without this characteristic and clean palms and finger pads % (n) | Adjusted OR* (95% CI), p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Female caregivers ever washed hands with soap (observed) | 56 (84) | 53 (446) | 1.07 (0.72, 1.56), p = 0.698 | 29 (41) | 25 (201) | 1.21 (0.81, 1.79), p = 0.356 |
Separate soap available at household for handwashing (spot checked) | 53 (215) | 55 (715) | 0.91 (0.73, 1.14), p = 0.432 | 33 (128) | 26 (325) | 1.41 (1.10, 1.81), p = 0.006 |
Spare soap available at household (spot checked) | 60 (324) | 53 (606) | 1.34 (1.08, 1.64), p = 0.006 | 33 (168) | 25 (285) | 1.41 (1.12, 1.78), p = 0.003 |
Used improved latrine (spot checked the infrastructure) | 61 (241) | 53 (689) | 1.40 (1.11, 1.77), p = 0.004 | 35 (130) | 26 (323) | 1.55 (1.21, 1.99), p = 0.001 |
Handwashing location after toilet use: within 10 feet (spot checked) | 54 (627) | 58 (303) | 0.83 (0.70, 1.06), p = 0.150 | 29 (323) | 25 (130) | 1.22 (0.96, 1.55), p = 0.104 |
Water available at handwashing locations after toilet use (spot checked) | 58 (713) | 46 (217) | 1.60 (1.29, 1.98), p = 0.000 | 31 (360) | 20 (93) | 1.72 (1.32, 2.24), p = 0.000 |
Soap available at handwashing locations after toilet use (spot checked) | 58 (493) | 52 (437) | 1.29 (1.06, 1.57), p = 0.010 | 32 (261) | 24 (192) | 1.54 (1.24, 1.93), p = 0.000 |
Self defined economic status: middle class and above | 61 (511) | 49 (419) | 1.59 (1.31, 1.93), p = 0.000 | 33 (266) | 23 (187) | 1.70 (1.36, 2.12), p = 0.000 |
Economic status based on Principal Component Analysis (PCA) | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
2nd quintile (compared to poorest) | 49 (165) | 47 (159) | 1.07 (0.79, 1.44), p = 0.662 | 21 (68) | 19 (63) | 1.11 (0.76, 1.63), p = 0.595 |
3rd quntile (compared to poorest) | 57 (194) | 47 (159) | 1.50 (1.11, 2.04), p = 0.009 | 27 (90) | 19 (63) | 1.64 (1.13, 2.37), p = 0.009 |
4th quintile (compared to poorest) | 59 (199) | 47 (159) | 1.64 (1.20, 2.24), p = 0.002 | 37 (119) | 19 (63) | 2.47 (1.71, 3.55), p = 0.000 |
5th quintile (compared to poorest) | 63 (213) | 47 (159) | 1.92 (1.41, 2.61) p = 0.000 | 35 (113) | 19 (63) | 2.35 (1.64, 3.36), p = .000 |