Volume 5, Issue 3, September 2019, Page: 78-86
Application of Qualitative Information System in Assessing Household Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Behaviors in Rural Bangladesh: A Cross-sectional Comparative Study
Tahera Akter, BRAC Research and Evaluation Division, BRAC Centre, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Mahmudur Rahman, BRAC Research and Evaluation Division, BRAC Centre, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Mahfuzar Rahman, BRAC Research and Evaluation Division, BRAC Centre, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Received: Jan. 27, 2019;       Accepted: Sep. 6, 2019;       Published: Sep. 24, 2019
DOI: 10.11648/j.jher.20190503.12      View  26      Downloads  9
Abstract
Ensuring the condition of water, and sanitation facilities is the early step to behavior change. However, mere provision of facilities does not ensure the desired behavioral change, thus health benefits. To improve health of the rural poor, the water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) program of Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) has been working in rural sub-districts since 2006. The main objective of the present study is to assess the status and quality of hygiene practice of some WASH indicators by the application of qualitative information system (QIS). This was a cross-sectional comparative study between intervention and comparison areas. A multi-stage random sampling technique was used to select study samples, where each sub-district was considered as a cluster. Total 880 households were selected randomly from 22 upazilas for data collection. Thirty-six interviewers grouped into twelve were trained intensively on data collection tools and techniques. Both observed (spot check) and self-reported data were collected using structured questionnaire to assess the status and quality of WASH practices. The scaling principles of qualitative information system (QIS) were applied to analyze data on WASH behaviors. The uniqueness of QIS method is that WASH practices are monitored and measured by collecting quantitative information on qualitative aspects. More households in intervention areas than comparison areas scored above benchmark in using arsenic free and protected drinking water source (69%. vs. 53%). There was no significant difference between the areas in terms of installing latrine within 12 steps of tubewell. Higher proportion of households in intervention areas had clean and two-pit latrines than comparison areas (61% vs. 34%). Drinking water was collected and stored safely from the safe source by 65% households in intervention areas higher than the comparison areas (65% vs. 52%). Unhygienic sanitation practices (e.g., open defecation, latrine without ring-slab, water seal) were found higher among the households in comparison areas than intervention areas (56% vs. 22%). More households in intervention than comparison areas reached at above benchmark in maintaining hygiene. However concern over unhygienic sanitation behaviors and relative distance between latrine and tubewell is required for enabling environment thus public health.
Keywords
WASH Behavior, Qualitative Information System, BRAC
To cite this article
Tahera Akter, Mahmudur Rahman, Mahfuzar Rahman, Application of Qualitative Information System in Assessing Household Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Behaviors in Rural Bangladesh: A Cross-sectional Comparative Study, Journal of Health and Environmental Research. Vol. 5, No. 3, 2019, pp. 78-86. doi: 10.11648/j.jher.20190503.12
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
UNO. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2018. 2018. Available at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2018/thesustainabledevelopmentgoalsreport2018.pdf.
[2]
Bartram J, Cairncross S. Hygiene, sanitation and water: Forgotten foundations of health. PLoS Med. 2010; 7 (11): 1000367. doi: 10.1371/journal/pmed.1000367.
[3]
WHO, UNICEF. Progress on sanitation and drinking water-2013 update. 2013. Available at: http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/JMPreport2013.pdf.
[4]
Mara D, Lane J, Scott B, Trouba D. Sanitation and health. PLoS Med. 2010; 7: 1–7.
[5]
UNICEF. Progress on drinking water and sanitation. 2014. Available at: www.unicef.org/.../Progress_on_drinking_water_and_sanitation_2014_upd.
[6]
Akter T, Ali ARMM, Dey NC. Transition overtime in household latrine use in rural Bangladesh: a longitudinal cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2014; 14: 721.
[7]
Rabbi SE, Dey NC. Exploring the gap between hand washing knowledge and practices in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional comparative study. BMC Public Health. 2013; 13: 89. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/13/89 (accessed on 13 September 2013).
[8]
Dey NC, Karim F, Rabbi SE. Use of tubewell water for different purposes at household level: safety practices in rural Bangladesh. In: achievements of BRAC water, sanitation and hygiene programme towards Millennium Development Goals and beyond. Dhaka: BRAC.
[9]
Akter T, Ali ARMM. Factors influencing knowledge and practice of hygiene in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) programme areas of Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee. Rural Remote Health. 2014; 14: 2628. (Online).
[10]
Hanchett S, Khan MH, Krieger L, Kullmann C. Sustainability of Sanitation in Rural Bangladesh, The future of water sanitation and hygiene: Innovation, adaptation and engagement in a changing world. Loughborough, UK: 35th WEDC International Conference. 2011.
[11]
Ruzicajacimovic, Ahmed M, Boston K. Programme performance monitoring: Report on QIS data analysis (WASH I). IRC, The Hague, the Netherlands. 2014.
[12]
Diaz-Quijano FA: A simple method for estimating relative risk using logistic regression. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12: 14.
[13]
Cummings P. Methods for estimating adjusted risk ratios. The Stata Journal. 2009; 9 (2): 175-196.
[14]
Hossain M, Rahman SN, Bhattacharya P, Jacks G, Saha R and Rahman M. Sustainability of arsenic mitigation interventions—an evaluation of different alternative safe drinking water options provided in Matlab, an arsenic hot spot in Bangladesh. Front. Environ. Sci. 2015; 3: 30. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2015.00030.
[15]
Taha AZ, Sebai ZA, Shahidullah M, Hanif M, Ahmed HO. Assessment of water use and sanitation behavior of a rural area in Bangladesh. Arch Environ Health. 2000; 55 (1): 51-7.
[16]
Luby SP, Gupta SK, Sheikh MA, Johnston RB, Ram PK, Islam MS. Tubewell water quality and predictors of contamination in three flood-prone areas in Bangladesh. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2008; 105: 1002–1008.
[17]
Rahman SH, Fakhruddin ANM, Uddin MJ, Zaman MS, Talukder A, Adyel TM, et al. Water quality of shallow tubewells as affected by sanitary latrines and groundwater flow. Journal of Bangladesh Academy of Sciences. 2013; 37 (2): 231-243.
[18]
Akter T, Jhohura FT, Chowdhury TR, Akter F, Mistry SK, Rahman M. Assessment of drinking water quality based on chemical and microbiological parameters in rural Bangladesh. Trop Med Int Health. 2015; 20 (Suppl. I): 1-147.
[19]
Davis J, Pickering AJ, Rogers K, Mamuya S, Boehm AB. The effects of informational interventions on household water management, hygiene behaviors, stored drinking water quality and hand contamination in peri-urban Tanzania. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2011; 84 (2): 184–191.
[20]
Hunter PR, MacDonald AM, Carter RC. Water supply and health. Plos Medicine. 2010; Vol 7 (11).
[21]
Amin N, Pickering AJ, Ram PK, Unicomb L, Najnin N, Homaira N, et al. Microbiological Evaluation of the Efficacy of Soapy Water to Clean Hands: A Randomized, Non-Inferiority Field Trial. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2014; 91 (2): 415–423.
[22]
Yusuf M, Hussain AMZ. Sanitation in rural communities in Bangladesh. Bull WHO. 1990; 68: 619-624.
[23]
Hadi A, Nath SR. Raising sanitary latrine use in rural Bangladesh: can BRAC play any role? Watch report no. 22. Dhaka, Bangladesh: BRAC. 1996. (2): 184–191.
Browse journals by subject