Skip to main content

Table 7 Association of risk factors with diarrhoea in univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis

From: Association of nutrition, water, sanitation and hygiene practices with children’s nutritional status, intestinal parasitic infections and diarrhoea in rural Nepal: a cross-sectional study

Risk factors [N (cases) = 492]

Univariate logistic regressiona

Multivariate logistic regressionb

OR

95% CI

P-value

aOR

95% CI

P-value

Age of child

<  5 years

1.00

  

1.00

  

>  5 years

0.47

0.34–0.66

< 0.001

0.39

0.27–0.58

0.01

Sex of child

Male

1.00

  

1.00

  

Female

1.08

0.82–1.44

0.58

1.14

0.82–1.58

0.43

Number of children in the household

<  5

1.00

     

>  5

2.18

0.66–0.18

0.20

   

Caregivers can read/write

Can neither read or write

1.51

1.04–2.19

 

1.21

0.76–1.95

 

Can read only

0.22

0.03–1.62

0.01

0.22

0.03–1.79

0.15

Can both read and write

1.00

  

1.00

  

Involvement in the water supply system

“yes” vs. “no”

0.81

0.39–1.66

0.57

   

In the community

Socioeconomic status

Poor

1

  

1.

  

Middle

1.15

0.79–1.66

0.37

1.13

0.73–1.74

0.86

Better

0.89

0.57–1.38

 

1.10

0.65–1.86

 

Main drinking water source

Piped water in the house

1.00

     

Piped water in the village

0.81

0.50–1.31

    

Open source

1.07

0.33–3.49

    

Protected source

0.91

0.24–3.45

0.91

   

Unmanaged piped system

1.57

0.15–16.17

    

River, stream or canal

1.60

0.17–15.38

    

Time to fetch drinking water

<  5 min

1.00

  

1.00

  

5–15 min

10.45

2.19–50.05

 

0.77

0.34–1.73

 

16–60 min

4.24

1.01–18.05

< 0.001

0.60

0.25–1.43

0.25

>  60 min

3.13

0.73–13.44

 

0.26

0.05–1.44

 

Interruption of the main drinking water source for more than a week

“yes” vs. “no”

2.92

1.49–5.71

< 0.001

2.72

1.18–6.31

0.02

Knowledge on factors that make water unsafe for drinking

Open unprotected source

2.39

1.71–3.33

< 0.001

0.66

0.37–1.17

0.16

Open defecation

1.23

0.91–1.66

0.17

1.36

0.82–2.26

0.23

Deforestation

1.05

0.48–2.29

0.90

   

Method of drinking water treatment used

Boiling

0.94

0.45–1.97

0.87

   

Filtration with cloth

0.98

0.37–2.61

0.97

   

Use of filter (“yes” vs. “no”)

0.63

0.36–1.15

0.12

0.81

0.41–1.60

0.54

Handwashing with soap

< 5 times

2.49

0.45–13.89

 

5.52

0.49–61.63

 

5–10 times

0.56

0.39–0.82

0.004

1.35

0.77–2.38

0.31

> 10 times

1.00

  

1.00

  

Times of handwashing

When they look dirty (yes vs. no)

0.41

0.30–0.54

< 0.001

0.47

0.32–0.71

0.01

After going to toilet (yes vs. no)

0.23

0.10–0.52

< 0.001

0.37

0.13–1.02

0.06

After cleaning baby’s bottom (yes vs. no)

0.64

0.48–0.84

< 0.001

0.80

0.53–1.19

0.27

Before eating (yes vs. no)

0.57

0.42–0.78

< 0.001

0.78

0.51–1.17

0.23

Before cooking (yes vs. no)

0.91

0.68–1.22

0.55

   

Animals inside home overnight

“yes” vs. “no”

1.06

0.78–1.44

0.72

   

Information received on WASH

“no” vs. “yes”

0.71

0.40–1.24

0.23

   

Handwashing station installed

“no” vs. “yes”

0.57

0.17–1.89

0.35

   

Wash hands during critical times

“yes” vs. “no”

0.91

0.41–2.01

0.83

   

Attended hygiene literacy class

“no” vs. “yes”

0.47

0.32–0.68

< 0.001

0.76

0.46–1.25

0.29

Caregivers heard about intestinal parasites

“no” vs. “yes”

0.72

0.49–1.05

0.09

1.06

0.59–1.90

0.84

Awareness on measures against intestinal parasites

Wash hands with soap

0.99

0.62–1.58

0.95

   

Wear shoe

0.85

0.43–1.68

0.64

   

Drink clean water

0.81

0.53–1.22

0.30

   

Deworming

0.61

0.36–1.04

0.07

1.29

0.58–2.84

0.53

Type of toilet in the household

Water pit latrine

1.67

0.85–3.27

 

0.84

0.15–4.78

 

Pit latrine

0.82

0.47–1.42

0.008

0.69

0.13–3.79

0.75

No latrine

1.00

  

1.00

  

Cleanliness of the toilet

“yes” vs. “no”

0.57

0.43–0.77

< 0.001

0.68

0.47–0.98

0.04

Materials available in toilet

Sandals/slippers

0.48

0.17–1.37

0.17

1.18

0.37–3.80

0.78

Drum with water

0.77

0.54–1.08

0.13

1.35

0.28–6.69

0.71

Brush

0.46

0.31–0.68

< 0.001

0.92

0.56–1.52

0.75

None of these

1.41

0.93–2.13

0.10

1.16

0.22–6.04

0.86

Trash outside the house

“no” vs. “yes”

0.62

0.44–0.86

0.01

1.01

0.61–1.68

0.98

Trash spread inside the house

“yes” vs. “no”

1.33

0.98–1.81

0.07

0.77

0.43–1.23

0.27

Entirety of food covered

“yes” vs. “no”

0.59

0.48–0.80

< 0.001

0.79

0.51–1.23

0.30

Flies in the kitchen

“yes” vs. “no”

0.97

0.67–1.40

0.85

   

Caregiver’s hands clean

“yes” vs. “no”

0.53

0.38–0.73

< 0.001

0.84

0.51–1.38

0.50

Caregiver wearing shoe

“yes” vs. “no”

0.57

0.41–0.77

< 0.001

0.96

0.64–1.46

0.87

Child’s hand clean

“yes” vs. “no”

0.45

0.34–0.61

< 0.001

0.62

0.40–0.96

0.03

Piles of dirty clothes in the house

“yes” vs. “no”

1.34

0.98–1.85

0.07

0.71

0.43–1.18

0.19

E. coli at point of use drinking water

“yes” vs. “no”

3.59

1.10–11.69

0.03

2.19

0.62–7.66

0.22

Total coliform at POU drinking water

“yes” vs. “no”

1.34

0.16–11.34

0.79

   

Presence of undernutrition

“yes” vs. “no”

1.12

0.83–1.51

0.47

   

Presence of intestinal parasites

“yes” vs. “no”

1.19

0.84–1.70

0.33

   

Floor materials

“mud” vs. “cement”

2.98

1.71–5.20

0.01

2.29

1.20–4.37

0.01

  1. a Odds ratios were obtained from univariate mixed logistic regression models with random area intercepts, and P-values were obtained from Wald- and likelihood ratio tests. P-values < 0.2 in the univariate analyses are marked in bold
  2. b Adjusted odds ratios were obtained from a multivariate mixed logistic regression model with random area intercepts including all variables with P-values < 0.2 in the univariate models along with gender and age group of the child and socio-economic category of the household. P-values were obtained from Wald- and likelihood ratio tests and values < 0.05 are marked in bold
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us