Cited by 104Child Nutrition and Water AccessWater Resource Management and QualitySchool Health and Nursing Education

Water, sanitation, and hygiene in schools: Status and implications of low coverage in Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia

Morgan, Camille, Bowling, Michael, Bartram, Jamie, Lyn Kayser, Georgia·2017·International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health

Abstract

Adequate access to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WaSH) in schools impacts health, educational outcomes, and gender disparities. Little multi-country research has been published on WaSH in rural schools in Sub-Saharan Africa. In this multi-national cross-sectional WaSH study, we document WaSH access, continuity, quality, quantity, and reliability in 2270 schools that were randomly sampled in rural regions of six Sub-Saharan African countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia. Data collection included: school WaSH surveys containing internationally established WaSH indicators, direct observation, and field- and laboratory-based microbiological water quality testing. We found 1% of rural schools in Ethiopia and Mozambique to 23% of rural schools in Rwanda had improved water sources on premises, improved sanitation, and water and soap for handwashing. Fewer than 23% of rural schools in the six countries studied met the World Health Organization's recommended student-to-latrine ratios for boys and for girls. Fewer than 20% were observed to have at least four of five recommended menstrual hygiene services (separate-sex latrines with doors and locks, water for use, waste bin). The low access to safe and adequate WaSH services in rural schools suggest opportunities for WaSH interventions that could have substantive impact on health, education, and gender disparities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.03.015

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morgan, C., Bowling, M., Bartram, J., & Lyn Kayser, G.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
220
Issue
6
Pages
950-959
ISSN
1438-4639 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2607172376
Cited by
104
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5
FWCI
3.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • United States Agency for International Development
  • World Health Organization
  • Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Child Nutrition and Water Access
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water Resource Management and Quality
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
Keywords
school water, sanitation and hygiene, rural schools, sub-Saharan Africa, latrine access, handwashing with soap, water quality, gender inequality in education, school health
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Hygiene, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Rural Population, Sanitation, Schools, Water Supply, Africa South of the Sahara

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