Understanding empowerment in water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH): a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In low- and middle-income countries, a common component of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions is the goal of empowerment of beneficiaries, particularly poor households. Empowerment is viewed as an important development goal in itself, as well as a way to obtain improved WASH outcomes. However, empowerment is a complex and multi-dimensional concept, and it is often not clear how it is defined in WASH sector programming. This scoping review explores how concepts of empowerment have been used in the WASH sector and delineates relevant empowerment dimensions. Medline, Embase, and Global Health databases were searched for in the peer-reviewed literature published in English. A total of 13 studies were identified. Five major interrelated empowerment dimensions were identified: access to information, participation, capacity building, leadership and accountability, and decision-making. This review provides researchers and practitioners with a greater understanding of dimensions of empowerment that are relevant for strengthening WASH interventions, as well as tracking progress toward gender and social equality outcomes over time. This understanding can help ensure inclusive WASH service delivery to achieve gender-sensitive Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets for universal water and sanitation access. This article has been made Open Access thanks to the generous support of a global network of libraries as part of the Knowledge Unlatched Select initiative.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".