Changes in the use of safe water and water safety measures in water, sanitation and hygiene intervention areas of Bangladesh: a midline assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The BRAC Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) programme reached 150 upazilas (sub-districts) in collaboration with the Government of Bangladesh since 2006. This study assessed the changes in the use of tubewell water and water safety measures in the households in the 11 upazilas of Bangladesh after BRAC WASH intentions. Data were collected from 6,600 households where 3,812 tubewells were traced in baseline (2006-7) and 3,591 tubewells in midline (2009) . Most of the households (98-99%) used tubewell water for drinking, 70-73% for cooking, 62-66% for washing utensils, 70-73% for cleaning after defecation, and 24 -36% for bathing in midline both in the dry and rainy seasons. The numbers were significantly larger in midline than in baseline (p<0.01) except for drinking in the rainy season. Overall arsenic-free tubewells increased from 58% in baseline to 60% in midline and most households (83%) drank arsenic-free tubewell water in midline. The study revealed that water safety measures including awareness of cleaning/purifying water and hygienic management of water increased significantly (p<0.01 ). The concrete-built platform increased from 63% in baline to 69% in midline. Tubewell platforms were cleaned (32%) in baseline, which increased to 46% in midline. However, there still remained impediments to 100% safe water use by the households include arsenic contamination of tubewell water, financial inabilities of the ultra poor and poor households for installing tubewells for arsenic-free water. unmarked tubewell (whether contaminated by arsenic or not). The study concluded that WASH inteNention has succeeded in increasing access to safe water use. hygienic management of water, and cleanliness of water collecting point in the study areas. It is encouraging to note that ultra poor households had interest to get new tubewells and preferred to pay the costs in monthly installments, which indicates that these households were aware of the benefits of safe water. Thus, BRAC WASH programme needs to pay further attention to these impediments at the household level in order to further improve the current situation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".