Cited by 165Gender Studies and Social IssuesChild Nutrition and Water AccessEnergy and Environment Impacts

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding and defining sanitation insecurity: Women’s gendered experiences of urination, defecation and menstruation in rural Odisha, India.

Open access

Abstract

Background Research suggests that the lived experience of inadequate sanitation may contribute to poor health outcomes above and beyond pathogen exposure, particularly among women. The goal of this research was to understand women’s lived experiences of sanitation by documenting their urination-related, defecation-related and menstruation-related concerns, to use findings to develop a definition of sanitation insecurity among women in low-income settings and to develop a conceptual model to explain the factors that contribute to their experiences, including potential behavioural and health consequences. Methods We conducted 69 Free-List Interviews and eight focus group discussions in a rural population in Odisha, India to identify women’s sanitation concerns and to build an understanding of sanitation insecurity. Findings We found that women at different life stages in rural Odisha, India have a multitude of unaddressed urination, defecation and menstruation concerns. Concerns fell into four domains: the sociocultural context, the physical environment, the social environment and personal constraints. These varied by season, time of day, life stage and toilet ownership, and were linked with an array of adaptations (ie, suppression, withholding food and water) and consequences (ie, scolding, shame, fear). Our derived definition and conceptual model of sanitation insecurity reflect these four domains. Discussion To sincerely address women’s sanitation needs, our findings indicate that more is needed than facilities that change the physical environment alone. Efforts to enable urinating, defecating and managing menstruation independently, comfortably, safely, hygienically, privately, healthily, with dignity and as needed require transformative approaches that also address the gendered, sociocultural and social environments that impact women despite facility access. This research lays the groundwork for future sanitation studies to validate or refine the proposed definition and to assess women’s sanitation insecurity, even among those who have latrines, to determine what may be needed to improve women’s sanitation circumstances.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000414

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Sanitation insecurity is defined by varied and multidimensional concerns, which can lead to various health outcomes and adaptation and coping strategies. Temporal variations can influence concerns, sanitation insecurity, outcomes, and coping and adaptation strategies.
Figure 1 Sanitation insecurity is defined by varied and multidimensional concerns, which can lead to various health outcomes and adaptation and coping strategies. Temporal variations can influence concerns, sanitation insecurity, outcomes, and coping and adaptation strategies.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 45 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Coffey, 2014, Revealed preference for open defecation, Economic & Political Weekly, 49, 43

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–163 of 163

Metadata

Authors
Caruso, B. A., Clasen, T. F., Hadley, C., Yount, K. M., Haardörfer, R., Rout, M., Dasmohapatra, M., & Cooper, H. L.
Affiliations
  • Emory University (US)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
Caruso, Bethany A
Venue
BMJ Global Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2017-10
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
e000414
ISSN
2059-7908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2762747131
Cited by
165
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 1
FWCI
23.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMJ Global Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Studies and Social Issues
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Child Nutrition and Water Access
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Energy and Environment Impacts
Keywords
micturition, defecation, menstruation, gendered experiences, rural Odisha, latrine ownership, socio-cultural barriers, stigma and shame, life stages, conceptual model

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