MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388137472 · doi:10.1002/hsr2.1662

Access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services and drinking water contamination risk levels in households of Bishoftu Town, Ethiopia: A cross‐sectional study

2023· article· en· W4388137472 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Science Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanitationHygieneEnvironmental healthOpen defecationFecal coliformTyphoid feverHand washingBusinessSocioeconomicsMedicineEnvironmental scienceWater qualityEnvironmental engineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and Aims Access to safe drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene is a fundamental human right and essential to control infectious diseases. However, many countries, including Ethiopia, do not have adequate data to report on basic water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services. Although contaminated drinking water spreads diseases like cholera, diarrhea, typhoid, and dysentery, studies on drinking water contamination risk levels in households are limited in Ethiopia. Therefore, closing this gap needs investigation. Methods A community‐based cross‐sectional study was conducted. A total of 5350 households were included. A systematic, simple random sampling technique was used to select the participants. The information was gathered through in‐person interviews using a standardized questionnaire. Furthermore, 1070 drinking water samples were collected from household water storage. Results This investigation revealed that 9.8%, 83.9%, and 4.9% of households used limited, basic, and safely managed drinking water services, respectively. Besides, 10.2%, 15.7% and 59.3% of households used safely managed, basic and limited sanitation services, respectively. Yet, 10.6% and 4.2% of households used unimproved sanitation facilities and open defecation practices. Also, 40.5% and 19.4% of households used limited and basic hygiene services. On the other hand, 40.1% of households lacked functional handwashing facilities. In this study, 12.1%, 26.3%, and 42% of households’ drinking water samples were positive for Escherichia coli , fecal coliforms, and total coliforms, respectively. Also, 5.1% and 4.5% of households’ drinking water samples had very high and high contamination risk levels for E. coli , respectively. We found that 2.5% and 11.5% of households and water distributors had unacceptable fluoride concentrations, respectively. Conclusion The majority of households in Bishoftu town lack access to safely managed sanitation, drinking water, and basic hygiene services. Many households’ water samples had very high and high health risk levels. Hence, the government and partner organizations should implement water and sanitation safety plans.

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)0.004
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.323 · 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