Skip to main content

Table 4 Effect of intervention on observed toilet characteristics

From: Cluster-randomised trial to test the effect of a behaviour change intervention on toilet use in rural India: results and methodological considerations

Item Control Intervention PD, % 95% CI APD% 95% CI
N % N %
Latrine use for other purpose 1214 9.6 1278 6.3 −3.3 −6.4/− 0.2 −2.6 −5.6/ -0.4
Clogging of squatting pan 1214 15.0 1278 10.6 −4.2 −8.4/0.0 −3.2 −7.4/ 1.0
Availability of water container 1214 84.9 1278 89.1 4.2 −0.7/9.0 3.3 `-1.6/ 8.1
Availability of slippers 1214 19.8 1278 24.9 4.8 0.1/ 9.4 3.0 −1.8/ 7.7
Availability of cleaning materials 1214 77.6 1278 84.3 6.4 0.8/ 12.0 5.0 −0.7/ 10.6
Toilet is in apparent use 1214 86.1 1278 90.4 4.3 −0.6/ 9.2 3.1 −1.8/ 8.0
Made any changes in last 6 months 1214 6.3 1278 6.0 −0.2 −2.4/ 1.9 − 0.3 −2.5/ 1.9
Plan to make any changes 1214 27.6 1278 22.9 −4.7 −9.3/ 0 −3.6 −8.3/ 1.2
Five star items
 Painted walls 1214 44.9 1278 52.9 8.1 1.9/14.2 5.3 −0.8/11.5
 Clean 1214 68.5 1278 76.0 7.4 1.3/13.4 5.7 −0.4/11.7
 Light bulb 1214 53.4 1278 62.4 9.3 1.8/16.8 6.9 −0.3/14.1
 Ventilation 1214 18.0 1278 18.8 0.8 −3.0/4.7 0.4 −3.6/4.3
 Water 1214 39.0 1278 47.6 8.9 2.2/15.6 5.3 −1.0/11.7
  1. 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)