Assessing School-Based Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Facilities in Peri-Urban Settings of Kinshasa, DR Congo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Kinshasa’s peri-urban settings have a low rate of water access, which has significant consequences for the WASH infrastructures in schools and preventative measures against the spread of waterborne diseases and pathogens. This study aimed to assess the availability, functionality, and gender sensitivity of WASH infrastructures of Kinshasa’s peri-urban schools. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed in three of the four educational provinces of Kinshasa, targeting 165 peri-urban schools. Data were collected using a questionnaire and an observation grid. Results: An overall proportion of 10.9% of schools possessed a water point, and therefore time-consuming water chores are a necessity in 89.1% of schools. Girl students provided 30% of the labor collecting water during punishments. A total of 98.2% of schools had functional latrines of which 3.6% were found hygienic, associated with water reserve next to the latrines (P = 0.040). Only 2.4% of schools displayed posters raising awareness of latrine hygiene, and 3.6% displayed posters on hand hygiene. The ratios of latrines units for girls were 58:1 for toilets and 115:1 for urinals, justifying open defecation and urination reported in 62.4% of schools. Also, 43% of schools had hand-washing facilities whose functionality was significantly associated with the presence of water points in the school’s inner courtyard (P = 0.032), with water (P P < 0.001). In total, 2.4% of schools had laundries for menstrual hygiene management. Conclusion: The majority of schools had limited drinking water services, which negatively impact the functionality and gender sensitivity of other WASH provisions. The current evidence as a public health concern would raise government and school authorities’ attention to address these environmental threats.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".