Comparative status of safe water use and hygiene practices in areas with and without NGO-Ied Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Programme

More than 90% people in Bangladesh have access to improved water supply system,
\nbut arsenic is posing a threat to this achievement. Additionally, hygiene is considered
\nas one of the challenging areas to deal in the development sector. A number of
\norganizations (both government and non-goverment) are working to improve the water
\nsupply, sanitation and hygiene practices through various water, sanitation and hygiene
\nprogrammes.
\nOBJECTIVE
\nThe overall objective of this study is to reveal the role of non-government
\norganizations (NGOs) in improving safe water use and hygiene practices by the rural
\npeople of Bangladesh.
\nMETHODS
\nTen upazi/as with both NGO-Ied sanitation programme intervention and without any
\nsuch activity (Comparison group) were selected for the study. Among the study
\nupazilas, four were comparison upazilas, three were with BRAC facilitated WASH
\nprogramme intervention areas and the rest three were with other NGO-Ied intervention
\nareas. A multistage 30-cluster sampling method was adopted and 420 households
\nwere selected randomly from every upazila for the survey. In selecting 30 villages from
\nevery upazila, interval-sampling method was used.
\nKEY FINDINGS
\n1. Tubewell water was used predominantly for drinking in the study areas.
\nSignificantly higher proportion of households in the BRAC WASH areas used
\ntubewell water for drinking than the comparison and other NGO intervention
\nareas (p<0.001).
\n2. The expenditure for tubewell drilling was mostly covered by self arrangement
\n(95.1 %) in the study areas. However, in BRAC WASH intervention areas 1.2%
\nand in other NGO-covered areas 1.1 % tubewells were financed by NGOs.
\nHouseholds not having their own tubewell mentioned financial problem (90.8%)
\nas the major reason for not being able to install tubewell.
\n3. Overall knowledge about the demerits of using arsenic-contaminated water in the
\ncomparison areas was found less than the NGO-Ied WASH intervention areas.
\nRegardless of the NGO-facilitated WASH programme prevalence, social
\ninstitutions (54%), NGOs (23.5%) and mass media (26.6%) were the most
\ncommon sources of information for knowing the demerits of using arseniccontaminated
\nwater.
\n4. Significantly higher proportion of people in NGO intervention areas (either BRAe
\nor other NGOs) mentioned to wash hands during critical times than the
\ncomparison areas. The overall hygiene practice among the households in the
\nother NGO intervention areas with regard to all relevant issues was found higher
\nthan the BRAe WASH and comparison areas, since less proportion of
\nrespondents mentioned not to know about the hygiene issues (p<O.001).
\n5. Respondents from all intervention areas strongly opined for the necessity of
\nNGO-Ied WASH programme for the improvement of safe water use (95.1%) and
\nhygiene (95.8%) practices.
\n6. While asked about the source of information regarding safe water use and
\nhygiene practices social institution and mass media were found predominant
\namong all intervention areas. However, in areas with WASH programme
\nintervention the respondents also mentioned NGO as a major information source.
\nCONCLUSIONS
\nThe overall status of use of tubewell water and hygiene practices was found better in
\nthe NGO-Ied WASH intervention areas than the comparison areas. People mentioned
\nabout the effects of NGO interventions on the improvement of use of safe water and
\nhygiene practices through the support for tubewell installation, arsenic testing,
\nmotivation and raising awareness through the village level committees organized by
\nthe NGOs. Majority of the respondents mentioned about the necessity of NGO
\nintervention for ensuring 100% safe water use and hygiene practices. However, it
\nneeds more support (both tubewell supply and awareness activities) from

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.