MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1590710115

Changes in the use of safe water and water safety measures in water, sanitation and hygiene intervention areas of Bangladesh: a midline assessment

2010· preprint· en· W1590710115 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBRAC University Institutional Repository (BRAC University) · 2010
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIslamic Development BankHospital for Sick ChildrenDepartment for International DevelopmentAustralian Agency for International DevelopmentEuropean CommissionUniversity of LeedsInternational Fine Particle Research InstituteBill and Melinda Gates FoundationAga Khan Foundation CanadaEmory UniversityGlobal Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and MalariaAga Khan FoundationNike FoundationUNICEFStyrelsen för Internationellt UtvecklingssamarbeteUniversity of OxfordOxfam America
KeywordsSanitationHygienePsychological interventionEnvironmental healthOpen defecationWater supplyBusinessIntervention (counseling)Water resource managementMedicineEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it