Cited by 58Child Nutrition and Water AccessGender Studies and Social IssuesUrban and Rural Development Challenges

Shared toilet users’ collective cleaning and determinant factors in Kampala slums, Uganda

Open access
Tumwebaze, Innocent K, Mosler, Hans-Joachim·2014·BMC Public Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Dirty shared toilets are a health risk to users in urban slum settlements. For health and non-health benefits among users of shared toilets to be guaranteed, their cleanliness is important. The objective of this study was to investigate the cleanliness situation of shared toilets in Kampala's slums and the psychological and social dilemma factors influencing users' cleaning behaviour and commitment by using the risks, attitudes, norms, ability and self-regulation (RANAS) model and factors derived from the social dilemma theory. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in three slums of Kampala between December 2012 and January 2013. Data were collected from 424 household respondents that were primarily using shared toilets. Semi-structured questionnaires administered through face-to-face interviews were used in data collection. Linear regression was done for the multivariate analysis to test for the association between respondent cleaning behaviour and a combination of RANAS and social dilemma predictors. RESULTS: Out of 424 respondents interviewed, 44.3% reported cleaning the shared toilet daily, 34.4% cleaned once or several times a week, 1.4% cleaned every second week, 5.4% cleaned once or several times a month and 14.4% did not participate in cleaning. The main RANAS factors significantly associated with respondents' cleaning behaviour were: attitudinal affective belief associated with cleaning a shared toilet (β = -0.13, P = 0.00) and self-regulating factors, such as coping planning (β = 0.42, P = 0.00), commitment (β = 0.24, P = 0.00), and remembering (β = 0.10, P = 0.01). For social dilemma factors, only the social motive factor was statistically significant (β = 0.15, P = 0.00). The R square for the linear model on factors influencing cleaning behaviour was 0.77 and R square for factors influencing cleaning commitment was 0.70. CONCLUSION: The RANAS factors provide a more robust understanding of shared toilet users' cleaning behaviour than social dilemma factors. Self-regulating factors and changing the negative affective cleaning feelings are shown to be very important for interventions to increase shared toilet users' collective participation in their cleaning. In addition to RANAS, social dilemma factors have an important influence on slum residents' commitment to clean their shared toilets.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1260

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/1260/prepub

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tumwebaze, I. K., & Mosler, H.-J.
Affiliations
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (CH)
Corresponding author
Tumwebaze, Innocent K
Venue
BMC Public Health
Published
2014-12
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
1260-1260
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2072316997
Cited by
58
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3
FWCI
4.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DORA Eawag (Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag)) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
  • Direktion für Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit
  • Eidgenössische Anstalt für Wasserversorgung Abwasserreinigung und Gewässerschutz
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Child Nutrition and Water Access
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Studies and Social Issues
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban and Rural Development Challenges
Keywords
shared toilets, toilet cleanliness, slum sanitation, self-regulation, coping planning, social norms, attitudes, commitment, social motives
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Attitude, Cooperative Behavior, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Group Processes, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Poverty Areas, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Control, Informal, Toilet Facilities, Uganda, Linear Models, Young Adult, Social Norms

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