Access and utilization of water and sanitation facilities and their determinants among pastoralists in the rural areas of northern Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Lack of safe water, sanitation and hygiene remains one of the most pressing global health issues of our time. Water and sanitation-related improvements are crucial in meeting the Global Sustainable Development Goals. This study was conducted to determine the access, utilization, and determinants of access to sanitation facilities among pastoral communities in rural areas of northern Tanzania.Methods: This cross-sectional study was carried out in Ngorongoro Conservation Area of Ngorongoro District in northern Tanzania. The survey included key measures adapted from the Joint WHO/UNICEF Core Questions on drinking-water and sanitation for Household Surveys. An observation checklist was also completed at each household. Geographical positions of the households were recorded using a Global Positioning System.Results: A total of 175 households participated in the study. More than half (61.7%, n=108) of the participants reported access to an improved water source throughout the year. The majority (50.3%, n=88) of the households reportedly practised open defecation. The multivariate analysis identified that the key determinants to access a sanitation facility at a household were socio-economic status, family size, the presence of under-five years of age in the household, history of diarrhoeal diseases – self-reported of an adult, having ever received education on sanitation and motivation for improvement in defecation place.Conclusion: There is limited access to water and sanitation facilities in communities in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area. Individual and community factors are key determinants for a household to own a sanitation facility. Findings from this study indicate a need for interventions to improve access to water and sanitation facilities in the area.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".