CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 148Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceChild Nutrition and Water AccessGender Studies and Social Issues

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Household sanitation facilities and women's risk of non-partner sexual violence in India

Open access
Jadhav, Apoorva, Weitzman, Abigail, Smith-Greenaway, Emily·2016·BMC Public Health
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3797-zPMC PMC5100257
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Globally, one in ten individuals practice open defecation. Despite media speculation that it increases women's risk of sexual violence, little empirical evidence supports the claims. We investigate the relationship between household sanitation facilities and women's risk of non-partner sexual violence (NPSV) in India, where nearly half of the population lives without a pit or toilet. METHODS: We use the most recent NPSV data, from the National Family Health Survey-III, to estimate logistic regression models of the effects of household sanitation facilities (toilet, pit, or none) on NPSV in the last year among women who have resided in their current home for one year or more. These effects are estimated net of other socioeconomic factors, compared to effects of household sanitation facilities on child diarrhea, and, as a falsification test, compared to effects of household sanitation facilities on intimate partner sexual violence (IPSV) in the last year. RESULTS: Net of their socioeconomic status, women who use open defecation are twice as likely to face NPSV as women with a household toilet. This is twice the association between open defecation and child diarrhea. The results of our falsification test indicate that open defecation is not correlated with IPSV, thus disconfirming a simultaneous selection of women into open defecation and sexual violence. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide empirical evidence that lacking household sanitation is associated with higher risk of NPSV.

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 · 10.1186/s12889-016-3797-z

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Percentage households with flush toilet, pit latrine, or reliance on open air defecation in India, by region (N = 75,619 households)
Fig. 1 Percentage households with flush toilet, pit latrine, or reliance on open air defecation in India, by region (N = 75,619 households)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 15 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Lennon S. In: WaterAid, editor. Fear and anger: Perceptions of risks related to seuxal violence against women linked to water and sanitation in Delhi, India. London: Sanitation and Hygiene Applied Research for Equity; 2011.
  2. Sciences, I.I.F.P. and M. International. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005–06: India: Volumes I and II. Mumbai: IIPS: International Institute for Population Sciences; 2007.
  3. Doron A, Jeffrey R. Open defecation in India. Econ Pol Wkly. 2014;XLIX(49):72–8.
  4. House S, et al. Violence, Gender & WASH: A Practitioner’s Toolkit – Making water, sanitation and hygiene safer through improved programming and services. London: WaterAid/SHARE; 2014. http://www.susana.org/en/resources/library/details/2098 . Accessed October 2015.
  5. Coffey D, et al. Revealed preference for open defecation. Econ Pol Wkly. 2014;49(38):43.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Jadhav, A., Weitzman, A., & Smith-Greenaway, E.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Jadhav, Apoorva
ORCID
Venue
BMC Public Health
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-11-08
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
1139-1139
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12889-016-3797-z
PMC
PMC5100257
OpenAlex
W2550826591
Cited by
148
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4
FWCI
12.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (T32AG000221)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Child Nutrition and Water Access
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Studies and Social Issues
Keywords
household sanitation, open defecation, non-partner sexual violence, intimate partner sexual violence, women's health, childhood diarrhea, toilets, India
MeSH terms
Intimate Partner Violence, Child Health, Adolescent, Adult, Child, Defecation, Diarrhea, Family Characteristics, Female, Humans, India, Middle Aged, Rape, Risk Factors, Safety, Sanitation, Sex Offenses, Sexual Partners, Toilet Facilities, Women, Young Adult

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