Household sanitation and personal hygiene practices are associated with child stunting in rural India: a cross-sectional analysis of surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Increasing evidence suggests that water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) practices affect linear growth in early childhood. We determined the association between household access to water, sanitation and personal hygiene practices with stunting among children aged 0-23 months in rural India. SETTING: India. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 10 364, 34 639 and 1282 under-2s who participated in the 2005-2006 National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), the 2011 Hunger and Malnutrition Survey (HUNGaMA) and the 2012 Comprehensive Nutrition Survey in Maharashtra (CNSM), respectively, were included in the analysis. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The association between WASH indicators and child stunting was assessed using logistic regression models. RESULTS: The prevalence of stunting ranged from 25% to 50% across the three studies. Compared with open defecation, household access to toilet facility was associated with a 16-39% reduced odds of stunting among children aged 0-23 months, after adjusting for all potential confounders (NHFS-3 (OR=0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99); HUNGaMA (OR=0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91); CNSM (OR=0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.85)). Household access to improved water supply or piped water was not in itself associated with stunting. The caregiver's self-reported practices of washing hands with soap before meals (OR=0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.94) or after defecation (OR=0.86, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.93) were inversely associated with child stunting. However, the inverse association between reported personal hygiene practices and stunting was stronger among households with access to toilet facility or piped water (all interaction terms, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Improved conditions of sanitation and hygiene practices are associated with reduced prevalence of stunting in rural India. Policies and programming aiming to address child stunting should encompass WASH interventions, thus shifting the emphasis from nutrition-specific to nutrition-sensitive programming. Future randomised trials are warranted to validate the causal association.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".