Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) practices among residents of different slum settlements in a ward of Kolkata: A mixed-methods study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Access to safe water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) is the most basic need for mankind. Poor WASH practices are associated with various waterborne diseases, especially in developing countries such as India. The aim of the study was to assess WASH practices among residents of different slum settlements in a ward of Kolkata, identify the factors associated with WASH practice, and explore the barriers faced by the families and municipal staff in providing adequate WASH services to the community. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational study, cross-sectional in design with a convergent parallel mixed–methods approach, was conducted in different slum settlements in a ward of Kolkata. Quantitative data were collected by face-to-face interview, spot observation, and measuring the living area, door, and window spaces. Key informant interviews were conducted with the medical officer, ward vector-control coordinator, and municipal waste handlers, in addition to in-depth interviews with respondents who had unsatisfactory WASH practices. SPSS version 25.0 was used to analyze the quantitative data. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically using Atlas.ti 22. RESULTS: The overall WASH practices were considered satisfactory in 58.8% of the households. Education of the respondents up to the secondary level, presence of overcrowding, and inadequate ventilation in the house had statistically significantly higher odds of unsatisfactory practice. Poor living conditions, difficulty in collecting and storing water, waterlogging, blocked sewage drains, common toilets for men and women, and lack of motivation were the primary obstacles identified by the residents. CONCLUSION: Unsatisfactory WASH practices were observed among a high proportion of the slum population. Community engagement and education regarding WASH in communities is strongly recommended along with improvement of infrastructure and capacity building.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In a cross-sectional mixed-methods study of 228 slum households in a Kolkata ward, 58.8% had satisfactory WASH practices using a median WASH score of 26.0 as the cutoff. Unsatisfactory practices were associated with lower education, overcrowding, and inadequate ventilation, while qualitative interviews identified poor living conditions, water collection/storage difficulties, waterlogging, blocked drains, shared toilets, and lack of motivation as barriers.
Key findings
- Overall WASH practices were satisfactory in 134/228 (58.8%) households; unsatisfactory WASH was defined as scoring below the median total WASH score of 26.0.
- Water: 226/228 (99.1%) used corporation/piped water; 161 (70.6%) did nothing to make drinking water safer; 191 (83.8%) found the supplied water acceptable; 162 (71.1%) cleaned storage containers at least weekly.
- Sanitation/hygiene: 178 (78.1%) used community latrines, 193 (84.6%) shared toilets, 214 (93.9%) had manual flushing, only 38 (16.7%) had a water source in the toilet, and 24 (10.5%) reported daily toilet cleaning; a dedicated handwashing facility was present in 33 (14.5%) dwellings, soap was available in 192 (84.2%), 171 (75.0%) always washed hands with soap before eating, and 200 (87.7%) always washed after using the toilet.
- In Table 4, education up to secondary (AOR 3.81, 95% CI 1.56–9.34; P=0.003), overcrowding (AOR 3.94, 95% CI 1.95–7.98; P<0.001), and inadequate ventilation (AOR 5.99, 95% CI 3.14–11.43; P<0.001) had significantly higher odds of unsatisfactory WASH; the narrative reports different AORs for these factors and also reports male gender (AOR 2.57, 95% CI 1.29–5.15). Qualitative themes included poor living conditions, difficulty collecting/storing water, waterlogging, blocked sewage drains, common toilets for men and women, littering, and lack of motivation.
Methods
- Observational cross-sectional study with a quantitative-dominant convergent parallel mixed-methods design (QUAN+qual), conducted in slum settlements in the urban field practice area of a medical college in Kolkata over 6 months (July–December 2022).
- Quantitative strand: 228 households randomly selected from a UPHC line list of 3,983; one adult per household was interviewed; data collected by face-to-face interview, spot observation, and measurement of living area, door, and window spaces; WASH score ranged 0–40, categorized by median cutoff; analyzed in SPSS v25 with bivariate and multivariable logistic regression.
- Qualitative strand: criterion purposive sampling; in-depth interviews with 8 households having unsatisfactory WASH scores and key informant interviews with 1 medical officer, 1 vector-control coordinator, and 4 municipal waste handlers until data saturation; thematically analyzed using Atlas.ti 22.
Limitations
- Stated by the paper: only one member per household was interviewed, so practices of other members may have been missed; household members may belong to different education levels and respond differently; water quality analysis was not included; the knowledge–practice gap was not assessed; and more meaningful triangulation/meta-inference would have improved the study.
- Evident from the text: the cross-sectional design cannot establish causality, and self-reported WASH practices may be subject to social desirability bias; findings come from slum settlements in one Kolkata ward, limiting generalizability.
- Evident from the text: some numbers are inconsistent between narrative and tables—e.g., adjusted odds ratios for education, overcrowding, and ventilation differ between the text and Table 4; male gender appears in the narrative but not Table 4; Nagelkerke R² is reported as 41.2% in the text versus 0.381 in the table note; and open handwashing is reported as 112 in the text versus 119 in Table 3.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 6 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
The method of drawing drinking water was observed to be safe among 88.6% of the study population.
“The method of drawing drinking water was observed to be safe among 88.6% of the study population.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Male gender was associated with statistically significantly higher odds of unsatisfactory WASH practices (AOR 2.57, 95% CI 1.29-5.15).
“Male gender (AOR 2.57 [1.29–5.15]), education of the respondent up to the secondary level (AOR 4.42 [1.75–11.16]), the presence of overcrowding (AOR 3.81 [1.86–7.84]), and inadequate ventilation (AOR 6.69 [3.42–13.08]) had statistically significant higher odds of unsatisfactory practice.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The water supply was intermittent in 226 (99.1%) households.
“Most households obtained their drinking water and water for other purposes from corporation water supply (226, 99.1%) which was intermittent in timings and was located within 10 m from their dwelling (116, 50.9%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
191 (83.8%) respondents reported that the water supplied was acceptable to them.
“Also, 191 (83.8%) respondents reported that the water supplied was acceptable to them [Table 1].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
156 (68.4%) households disposed of their household wastewater in open drains.
“The majority of the households disposed of their solid wastes in designated waste disposal areas and 156 (68.4%) disposed of their household wastewater in open drains.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
- Findingown data
A little more than three-fourths (178, 78.1%) used community latrines.
“A little more than three-fourths used community latrines (178, 78.1%), shared by other households (193, 84.6%) with manual flushing facilities (214, 93.9%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Among 55 households with children under 5 years of age, in 23 (41.8%) dwellings the children used community latrines.
“Out of 55 households that had children under 5 years of age, excreta disposal into latrines was practiced by 8 (14.5%) families, and in 23 (41.8%) dwellings, the children used community latrines.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Among 55 households with children under 5 years of age, excreta disposal into latrines was practiced by 8 (14.5%) families.
“Out of 55 households that had children under 5 years of age, excreta disposal into latrines was practiced by 8 (14.5%) families, and in 23 (41.8%) dwellings, the children used community latrines.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
A water source was present in only 38 (16.7%) toilets.
“A water source was present in only 38 (16.7%) toilets.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
A dedicated handwashing facility was observed in only 33 (14.5%) dwellings.
“A dedicated handwashing facility was observed in only 33 (14.5%) dwellings, whereas more than half of the study population washed their hands in the open outside their houses (112, 52.2%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
About 41.2% of the variability in unsatisfactory WASH practices was explained by the multivariable model (Nagelkerke R2; table reports 0.381).
“About 41.2% variability of the dependent variable (unsatisfactory WASH practices) was explained by Nagelkerke R2 [Table 4].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Toilets were shared with other households by 193 (84.6%) respondents.
“A little more than three-fourths used community latrines (178, 78.1%), shared by other households (193, 84.6%) with manual flushing facilities (214, 93.9%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Littering issues were among the main barriers to WASH identified by residents.
“The main barriers found from the residents were poor living conditions, water collection and storage difficulty, waterlogging, blocked sewage drains, common toilets for both men and women, littering issues, and lack of motivation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
A bar or liquid soap was available in 192 (84.2%) handwashing facilities.
“A bar or liquid soap was available in 192 (84.2%) handwashing facilities.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Most households (226, 99.1%) obtained drinking water and water for other purposes from corporation water supply.
“Most households obtained their drinking water and water for other purposes from corporation water supply (226, 99.1%) which was intermittent in timings and was located within 10 m from their dwelling (116, 50.9%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Among women who had not attained menopause, 79 (82.3%) used sanitary pads during menstruation.
“Out of 140 women respondents, 44 had attained menopause. Amongst the others, 79 (82.3%) used sanitary pads during menstruation while the remaining preferred cloth.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
200 (87.7%) of the study population always washed their hands with soap after using the toilet.
“Also, 171 (75%) of the study population responded that they always washed their hands with soap before eating and 200 (87.7%) always washed their hands with soap after using the toilet [Table 3].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
More than half (112, 52.2%) of the study population washed their hands in the open outside their houses.
“A dedicated handwashing facility was observed in only 33 (14.5%) dwellings, whereas more than half of the study population washed their hands in the open outside their houses (112, 52.2%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
171 (75%) of the study population always washed their hands with soap before eating.
“Also, 171 (75%) of the study population responded that they always washed their hands with soap before eating and 200 (87.7%) always washed their hands with soap after using the toilet [Table 3].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
No pre-treatment was given to drinking water to make it safer to consume in 161 (70.6%) families.
“No pre-treatment was given to drinking water to make it safer to consume in 161 (70.6%) families.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Water storage containers were cleaned at least once weekly in 162 (71.1%) households.
“Water storage containers were cleaned at least once weekly in 162 (71.1%) households.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
41 (42.7%) of the women disposed of their menstrual material along with other solid waste in wrapped condition.
“Also, 41 (42.7%) of the women disposed of their menstrual material along with other solid waste in wrapped condition.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
A mere 24 (10.5%) respondents reported that the toilets were cleaned daily.
“A mere 24 (10.5%) respondents reported that the toilets were cleaned daily.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
Thematic analysis of qualitative data helped explain the reasons for unsatisfactory WASH practices to a large extent.
“Thematic analysis of qualitative data helped in explaining reasons for the unsatisfactory practices to a large extent.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Slum dwellers have little or no access to universal, equitable, and safe WASH services.
“Comprising almost 17% of India's urban population and 29.6% of the population in Kolkata Metropolitan city, the slum dwellers have little or no access to universal, equitable, and safe WASH services.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [4] Government of India Census of India 2011 Available from: https://censusindia.gov.in/census.website/ [Last accessed on 2023 Sep 18]
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Most urban poor households depend on communal or shared sanitation facilities.
“Most urban poor households depend on communal or shared sanitation facilities.[4]”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [4] Government of India Census of India 2011 Available from: https://censusindia.gov.in/census.website/ [Last accessed on 2023 Sep 18]
Not checked in the free run.
- May combine two claims. 8
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 15
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataResidents identified poor living conditions, difficulty in collecting and storing water, waterlogging, blocked sewage drains, common toilets for men and women, and lack of motivation as primary obstacles to WASH.
“Poor living conditions, difficulty in collecting and storing water, waterlogging, blocked sewage drains, common toilets for men and women, and lack of motivation were the primary obstacles identified by the residents.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimThe quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataEducation of the respondent up to the secondary level was associated with statistically significantly higher odds of unsatisfactory WASH practices (AOR 4.42, 95% CI 1.75-11.16 in the text; table reports AOR 3.81, 95% CI 1.56-9.34).
“Male gender (AOR 2.57 [1.29–5.15]), education of the respondent up to the secondary level (AOR 4.42 [1.75–11.16]), the presence of overcrowding (AOR 3.81 [1.86–7.84]), and inadequate ventilation (AOR 6.69 [3.42–13.08]) had statistically significant higher odds of unsatisfactory practice.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataOverall WASH practices were satisfactory in 134 (58.8%) of 228 households, using the median WASH score of 26.0 as the cut-off, meaning 41.2% had unsatisfactory practices.
“The overall WASH practices were considered satisfactory in 58.8% of the households.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“The overall WASH practices were considered satisfactory in 134 (58.8%) households taking the median WASH score of 26.0 as the cut-off.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
“A substantial proportion of the slum dwellers did not have satisfactory WASH practices.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § Results · plain
The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataInadequate ventilation was associated with statistically significantly higher odds of unsatisfactory WASH practices (AOR 6.69, 95% CI 3.42-13.08 in the text; table reports AOR 5.99, 95% CI 3.14-11.43).
“Male gender (AOR 2.57 [1.29–5.15]), education of the respondent up to the secondary level (AOR 4.42 [1.75–11.16]), the presence of overcrowding (AOR 3.81 [1.86–7.84]), and inadequate ventilation (AOR 6.69 [3.42–13.08]) had statistically significant higher odds of unsatisfactory practice.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimThe quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataPresence of overcrowding was associated with statistically significantly higher odds of unsatisfactory WASH practices (AOR 3.81, 95% CI 1.86-7.84 in the text; table reports AOR 3.94, 95% CI 1.95-7.98).
“Male gender (AOR 2.57 [1.29–5.15]), education of the respondent up to the secondary level (AOR 4.42 [1.75–11.16]), the presence of overcrowding (AOR 3.81 [1.86–7.84]), and inadequate ventilation (AOR 6.69 [3.42–13.08]) had statistically significant higher odds of unsatisfactory practice.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenMore meaningful triangulation of data and meta-inference would have added quality to the study.
“Also, a little more meaningful triangulation of data and meta-inference would have added quality to the study.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenQualitative interviews were conducted until data saturation.
“Eight households, one medical officer, one vector control coordinator, and four waste handlers were interviewed until data saturation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenThe schedule was translated into Bengali and Hindi, re-translated into English, and matched by an independent reviewer to assess consistency.
“The schedule was translated into the local regional languages (Bengali and Hindi) by one language expert and re-translated into English by another expert. It was then matched by another independent reviewer to assess consistency.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataInstitutional Ethics Committee permission was obtained before starting the study.
“Institutional Ethics Committee permission was obtained before starting the study (letter no: Institute name/IEC/2022/516 dated 14.11.2022).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenThe study did not assess the gap between knowledge and practice of WASH practices among the study population.
“The gap between knowledge and practice of WASH practices among the study population was not assessed.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductreasoningThe study did not include a component of water quality analysis.
“The inclusion of a component of water quality analysis in the study would have been better.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenMulticollinearity was checked (variance inflation factor <10), and variables with P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant predictors in the final model.
“Data were checked for multicollinearity (variance inflation factor <10), and variables with P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant predictors in the final model.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataThe schedule was pretested among 20 slum dwellers who were not included in the final sample.
“The schedule was later pretested among 20 slum dwellers who were not included in the final sample.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationInadequate access to safe WASH practices is associated with an increased risk of water-borne diseases.
“Since time immemorial, inadequate access to safe WASH practices has been associated with an increased risk of water-borne diseases.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [6] World Health Organization Safer Water, Better Health Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329905/9789241516891-eng.pdf?sequence=1 & isAllowed=y [Last accessed on 2023 Jul 08]
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataQualitative interview guides were prepared under supervision and assessed for face validity by experts.
“Initially, semi-structured interview guides were prepared under the supervision of two professors from the subject of community medicine and one medical officer working in the State Public Health Cell, Swasthya Bhawan, Kolkata. After preparation, all questions were read out in front of the experts for face validity and for inputs regarding the addition or modification of questions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningSample size was calculated using Cochran's formula with p = 65% from Chu et al., yielding 207, and the final sample size was 228 households after adding 10% non-response.
“Taking the proportion (p) of poor WASH scores from a study by Chu et al.[7] in slums in Vellore, Tamil Nadu, as 65%, q = 1-p and relative error L as 10% sample size was calculated using Cochran's formula:”
- Also stated in: § Sample size · plain
“The final sample size was 228 households after adding a non-response of 10%.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [7] Chu JQY John R Balasubramanya B Jeyapaul S Mohan VR John A A study on water, sanitation and hygiene practices among the urban slum dwellers of Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India Int J Community Med Public Health 2020 7 2567 73
Not checked in the free run.
- Also stated in: § Sample size · plain
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductown dataHouseholds were selected using simple random sampling without replacement from a line list of 3,983 households.
“A line list of 3,983 households, maintained at the Urban Primary Health Centre (UPHC), was obtained after permission from the medical officer. Then, the required number of households for the study were selected using simple random sampling technique without replacement with the help of health workers.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductcitationThe quantitative schedule was pre-designed, pre-tested, structured, and adopted from the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program household survey questionnaire.
“Questions on WASH practice (adopted from the core WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation household survey questionnaire) included 12 questions on water, 11 questions on sanitation, and 9 questions on hygiene including menstrual hygiene.[8]”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [8] WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Core questions on water, sanitation and hygiene for household surveys Available from: https://washdata.org/report/jmp-2018-core-questions-household-surveys [Last accessed on 2023 Jul 08]
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenInformed written consent was obtained before each interview.
“Informed written consent was obtained before each interview, and all ethical principles were strictly adhered to throughout the course of the study.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningOnly one adult member per household was interviewed, which might have missed key findings or practices of other members.
“Though the sampling unit was a household, only one member was interviewed to avoid repetition. However, in doing so, some key findings/practices (good or bad) of the other members might have been missed.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationWomen are especially vulnerable because lack of adequate and safe WASH affects their overall livelihood.
“Women are especially vulnerable as the lack of adequate and safe WASH affects their overall livelihood.[5]”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [5] Swami SK An Empirical study of growth of slum population in India Int J Pol Sci 2017 3 10 3
Not checked in the free run.
The paper relies on this without support.
There is a paucity of studies on WASH from Eastern India, especially Kolkata.
“Although WASH has been assessed in many parts of India, there is a paucity of studies from Eastern India, especially Kolkata.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Previous studies conducted in West Bengal mainly focused on hand hygiene.
“Studies previously conducted in West Bengal mainly focused on hand hygiene.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Ventilation adjusted odds ratio differs from Table 4
MajorThe results text reports an adjusted odds ratio of 6.69 for inadequate ventilation, while Table 4 reports 5.99, with a different confidence interval.
“inadequate ventilation (AOR 6.69 [3.42–13.08])”
“| Inadequate | 65 | 6.59 (3.67-11.84) | 5.99 (3.14-11.43) | P<0.001 |”
Education adjusted odds ratio differs from Table 4
MajorThe results text reports an adjusted odds ratio of 4.42 for education up to secondary level, while Table 4 reports 3.81, with a different confidence interval.
“education of the respondent up to the secondary level (AOR 4.42 [1.75–11.16])”
“| Up to secondary | 82 | 2.71 (1.33-5.52) | 3.81 (1.56-9.34) | 0.003 |”
Overcrowding adjusted odds ratio differs from Table 4
MajorThe results text reports an adjusted odds ratio of 3.81 for overcrowding, while Table 4 reports 3.94, with a different confidence interval.
“the presence of overcrowding (AOR 3.81 [1.86–7.84])”
“| Present | 77 | 4.53 (2.42-8.46) | 3.94 (1.95-7.98) | P<0.001 |”
Handwashing location count does not match its percentage
MinorThe reported 112 households represent 49.1% of 228, not 52.2%. Table 3 instead lists 119 households for the open handwashing area category.
Reported 52.2 · recomputed 49.122807
“more than half of the study population washed their hands in the open outside their houses (112, 52.2%).”
Ethics approval date falls after the study began
MinorThe study period began in July 2022, but the ethics permission described as obtained before starting the study is dated November 14, 2022.
“Institutional Ethics Committee permission was obtained before starting the study (letter no: Institute name/IEC/2022/516 dated 14.11.2022).”
“was conducted in different slum settlements in urban field practice area of a medical college in Kolkata over a period of 6 months (July to December 2022).”
Cites
Khan, M. A. (2022) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09355 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Practices in Urban Slums of Eastern India
Kanungo, S., Chatterjee, P., Saha, J., Pan, T., Chakrabarty, N. D., & Dutta, S. (2021) · The Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/infdis/jiab354 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Modified BG Prasad Socioeconomic Status Scale: Updated for the Year 2022
Bashar, M. A. (2022) · Indian Pediatrics · doi:10.1007/s13312-022-2631-1 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Modified BG Prasad Socioeconomic Status Scale: Updated for the Year 2022.
Bashar, M. A. (2022) · PubMed · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Wani, H., Smeets, P., & Shrivastava, S. (2022) · Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development · doi:10.2166/washdev.2022.196 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Tripathy, R. M., Acharya, G. C., & Karmee, N. (2017) · International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences · doi:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20174931 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
An Empirical Study of Growth of Slum Population in India
(2017) · International Journal of Political Science · doi:10.20431/2454-9452.0301002 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Chu, J. Q. Y., John, R., Balasubramanya, B., Jeyapaul, S., Mohan, V. R., John, A., Viola, C. T., Poornima, K., Reji, A., John, S. M., et al. (2020) · International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health · doi:10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20202978 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Agarwal, R., Tiwari, N., & Malhotra, A. (2017) · International Journal of Medical Science and Public Health · doi:10.5455/ijmsph.2017.0824506092017001 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Gupta, A. S. D. A., Lal, P. C., & Sharma, G. A. (2020) · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Jogezai (2021) · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Shukla, 2017, A cross sectional study on water, sanitation and hygiene practices among urban slum dwellers of Petlad taluka of Anand District, Healthline, 8, 30
- Undavalli, 2018, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) practices in urban slums, Int J Curr Adv Res, 7, 9974
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Menstrual hygiene practices among teens and reproductive age group women: A cross-sectional study
Sreeja, S., Garikapati, K., Sharmila, V., & Marimuthu, Y. (2025) · Journal of Education and Health Promotion · doi:10.4103/jehp.jehp_558_24 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Kar, S., Singh, S., Ray, A., Pattnaik, B., Das, S., Das, A., & Nayak, R. (2025) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1676981 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Roy, C., Sati, V. P., Sharma, M., Banerjee, S., & Kalbalia, P. (2025) · Discover Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12982-025-01205-1 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Sifullah, M. K., Sohel, M. S., Jamil, S., Ahmad, B., Hossain, M. A., Obaidullah, M., Zaman, N. T., Faruk, O., Islam, M. T., & Ali, N. (2025) · Discover Social Science and Health · doi:10.1007/s44155-025-00187-4
Santra, S., Panwar, N., Dhama, S., Rajan, A. K., Singhal, P., & Verma, A. (2026) · International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health · doi:10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20263176
- Authors
- Ray, K., Shukla, V., Basu, M., Manna, S., Rashid, M., & Mondal, A.
- Affiliations
- Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Shukla, Vineeta
- Venue
- Journal of Education and Health Promotion
- Published
- 2024-03
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 113-113
- ISSN
- 2277-9531 (ISSN-L)
- 2319-6440
- PMC
- PMC11081455
- OpenAlex
- W4393192154
- Semantic Scholar
- 64636dfd7d025a301f357ec56bb3d365a9a6bdf2
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4
- FWCI
- 1.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-sa
- Locations
- Journal of Education and Health Promotion (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Child Nutrition and Water Access
- Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban and Rural Development Challenges
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Public Health and Environmental Issues
- Keywords
- slum settlements, Kolkata, housing conditions, overcrowding, poor ventilation, waterlogging, sewage drainage, shared toilets, waterborne diseases, community participation
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-11-03.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-11-03.
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
