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)