How does Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) affect latrine ownership? A quantitative case study from Mozambique

Table 4 Summary of multiple mediation analysis: CLTS indirectly influencing latrine ownership status through its effect on several social and psychosocial factors

Mediator	CLTS			Latrine ownership			Indirect effect (95% CI)			Odds ratio for specific indirect effects (95% CI)
	B	SE	p	B	SE	p	LL	B	UL	OR
Social capital	0.402***	0.109	.000	0.298**	0.108	.005	0.028	0.120	0.267	1.127
Vulnerability	−.593***	0.115		−0.577***	0.103	.000	0.174	0.343	0.555	1.409
Feelings	.026	0.090	.770	−0.327**	0.127	.009	−0.087	− 0.009	0.052	0.99
Beliefs about costs and benefits	−.194***	0.050	.000	−1.339***	0.249	.000	0.113	0.260	0.472	1.297
Others’ behavior	1.110***	0.101	.000	1.082***	0.126	.000	0.856	1.202	1.582	3.327
Others’ (dis)approval	.517***	0.082	.000	0.521***	0.148	.000	0.096	0.269	0.483	1.309
Confidence in recovery of broken latrine	.260**	0.083	.002	0.910***	.177	.000	0.074	0.237	0.447	1.267

Note N = 593. B = unstandardized regression coefficients from linear regressions (CLTS) and logistic regression (latrine ownership); SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval for specific indirect effects; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; OR = odds ratio for specific indirect effects
CLTS received was coded ‘1’, and CLTS not received was coded ‘0’. Latrine ownership was coded ‘1’, and no latrine ownership was coded ‘0’. Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals for the specific indirect effects were computed based on 10,000 bootstrap samples (bold: Significant effects)

ISSN: 1471-2458