The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The impact of sanitation interventions on latrine coverage and latrine use: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: An estimated 2.4 billion people still lack access to improved sanitation and 946 million still practice open defecation. The World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned this review to assess the impact of sanitation on coverage and use, as part of its effort to develop a set of guidelines on sanitation and health. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We systematically reviewed the literature and used meta-analysis to quantitatively characterize how different sanitation interventions impact latrine coverage and use. We also assessed both qualitative and quantitative studies to understand how different structural and design characteristics of sanitation are associated with individual latrine use. A total of 64 studies met our eligibility criteria. Of 27 intervention studies that reported on household latrine coverage and provided a point estimate with confidence interval, the average increase in coverage was 14% (95% CI: 10%, 19%). The intervention types with the largest absolute increases in coverage included the Indian government's "Total Sanitation Campaign" (27%; 95% CI: 14%, 39%), latrine subsidy/provision interventions (16%; 95% CI: 8%, 24%), latrine subsidy/provision interventions that also incorporated education components (17%; 95% CI: -5%, 38%), sewerage interventions (14%; 95% CI: 1%, 28%), sanitation education interventions (14%; 95% CI: 3%, 26%), and community-led total sanitation interventions (12%; 95% CI: -2%, 27%). Of 10 intervention studies that reported on household latrine use, the average increase was 13% (95% CI: 4%, 21%). The sanitation interventions and contexts in which they were implemented varied, leading to high heterogeneity across studies. We found 24 studies that examined the association between structural and design characteristics of sanitation facilities and facility use. These studies reported that better maintenance, accessibility, privacy, facility type, cleanliness, newer latrines, and better hygiene access were all frequently associated with higher use, whereas poorer sanitation conditions were associated with lower use. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that most sanitation interventions only had a modest impact on increasing latrine coverage and use. A further understanding of how different sanitation characteristics and sanitation interventions impact coverage and use is essential in order to more effectively attain sanitation access for all, eliminate open defecation, and ultimately improve health.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Dermyshi, E., Wang, Y., Yan, C., Hong, W., Qiu, G., Gong, X., & Zhang, T. (2017) · Neonatology · doi:10.1159/000454668 · Cited by 24,451
Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
(2018) · A New Era in Global Health · doi:10.1891/9780826190123.ap02 · Cited by 19,351
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables
Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Akl, E. A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., Norris, S., Falck-Ytter, Y., Glasziou, P., & deBeer, H. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 · Cited by 10,681
GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Montori, V., Vist, G., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Alonso-Coello, P., Djulbegovic, B., Atkins, D., Falck-Ytter, Y., et al. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.011 · Cited by 1,819
Clasen, T., Boisson, S., Routray, P., Torondel, B., Bell, M., Cumming, O., Ensink, J., Freeman, M., Jenkins, M., Odagiri, M., et al. (2014) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(14)70307-9 · Cited by 537
Self-citationPatil, S. R., Arnold, B. F., Salvatore, A. L., Briceno, B., Ganguly, S., Colford, J. M., & Gertler, P. J. (2014) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001709 · Cited by 487
Pickering, A. J., Djebbari, H., Lopez, C., Coulibaly, M., & Alzua, M. L. (2015) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(15)00144-8 · Cited by 391
Freeman, M. C., Garn, J. V., Sclar, G. D., Boisson, S., Medlicott, K., Alexander, K. T., Penakalapati, G., Anderson, D., Mahtani, A. G., Grimes, J. E. T., et al. (2017) · International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health · doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.05.007 · Cited by 358
Self-citationBarreto, M. L., Genser, B., Strina, A., Assis, A. M. O., Rego, R. F., Teles, C. A., Prado, M. S., Matos, S. M., Santos, D. N., dos Santos, L. A., et al. (2007) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61638-9 · Cited by 268
Routray, P., Schmidt, W.-P., Boisson, S., Clasen, T., & Jenkins, M. W. (2015) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2206-3 · Cited by 253
Self-citation
Cited by
Wolf, J., Hunter, P. R., Freeman, M. C., Cumming, O., Clasen, T., Bartram, J., Higgins, J. P. T., Johnston, R., Medlicott, K., Boisson, S., et al. (2018) · Tropical Medicine & International Health · doi:10.1111/tmi.13051 · Cited by 403
Self-citationExposure to Animal Feces and Human Health: A Systematic Review and Proposed Research Priorities
Penakalapati, G., Swarthout, J., Delahoy, M. J., McAliley, L., Wodnik, B., Levy, K., & Freeman, M. C. (2017) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b02811 · Cited by 373
Self-citationFreeman, M. C., Garn, J. V., Sclar, G. D., Boisson, S., Medlicott, K., Alexander, K. T., Penakalapati, G., Anderson, D., Mahtani, A. G., Grimes, J. E. T., et al. (2017) · International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health · doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.05.007 · Cited by 358
Self-citationSustainability of community-led total sanitation outcomes: Evidence from Ethiopia and Ghana
Crocker, J., Saywell, D., & Bartram, J. (2017) · International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health · doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.02.011 · Cited by 131
Sclar, G. D., Penakalapati, G., Amato, H. K., Garn, J. V., Alexander, K., Freeman, M. C., Boisson, S., Medlicott, K. O., & Clasen, T. (2016) · International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health · doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2016.09.021 · Cited by 108
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Garn, J. V., Sclar, G. D., Freeman, M. C., Penakalapati, G., Alexander, K. T., Brooks, P., Rehfuess, E. A., Boisson, S., Medlicott, K. O., & Clasen, T. F.
- Venue
- International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-04
- Volume
- 220
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 329-340
- ISSN
- 1438-4639 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2531793289
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 69
- FWCI
- 4.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The impact of sanitation interventions on latrine coverage and latrine use: A systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ijheh.2016.10.001
- The paper
- Garn, J. V., Sclar, G. D., Freeman, M. C., Penakalapati, G., Alexander, K. T., Brooks, P., Rehfuess, E. A., Boisson, S., Medlicott, K. O., & Clasen, T. F. (2017). The impact of sanitation interventions on latrine coverage and latrine use: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2016.10.001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
