MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411127634 · doi:10.1186/s12913-025-12874-8

Assessment of water, sanitation and hygiene services within nineteen Rohingya camps in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh in 2022

2025· article· en· W4411127634 on OpenAlexaff
Saira Butt, Md. Fazlul Karim Chowdhury, Sohana Sadique, Abdullah-Al- Faisal, Aleksander Gorski, Biserka Pop-Stefanija, David Beversluis, Jackson Mojong Lochokon, Kalyan Velivela, Kennedy Uadiale, Md Mahbubur Rahman, Tilahun Worku, Thok Johnson Gony Billiew, Patrick Keating

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Geopolitics and Ethnography
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanitationHygieneMedicineLot quality assurance samplingEnvironmental healthPublic healthWater supplyPopulationSocioeconomicsNursingCluster samplingEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Since August 2017, approximately 960,000 Rohingya refugees have settled in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh. Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) infrastructure and programs were implemented across the camps to address the needs of the population and reduce the burden of linked infectious diseases. However, monitoring and maintenance of this infrastructure has been inconsistent. This study aimed to assess progress in WASH in the camps of Cox's Bazar since the early emergency phase in 2018, and to update the priorities for intervention. METHODS: From January to March 2022, a lot quality assurance sampling (LQAS) survey was conducted across 19 camps. Nineteen households were randomly selected per camp. Data on access to and quality of WASH services, household practices, and health outcomes including skin infections among children under five years of age were collected. Crude and weighted averages with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each indicator and compared with targets pre-defined based on Sphere guidelines and Médecins Sans Frontières WASH experts. Chi-squared tests were used to compare the results to a 2018 LQAS survey. RESULTS: More than half of the indicators (59%; 16/27) did not meet the pre-determined targets. Performance was adequate on three of five water quality and supply indicators, with less than half of households (44%, 95% CI: 39-49%) reporting that water was continuously available in the past week. Regarding water storage, performance on three indicators was considered adequate, as the proportion of households that keep water for less than one day was 27% (95% CI: 23-32%). Of six hygiene indicators, adequate performance was identified for only one. Performance on the sanitation indicators was inadequate, with 11% (95% CI: 8-15%) of households using an improved sanitation facility. In solid waste management, two of four indicators suggested adequate performance, and for health outcomes, the proportion of children who hadn't shown any skin infection was inadequate at 69% (95% CI: 64-73%). CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in the WASH situation in Cox's Bazar have been observed in 2022 compared to 2018. However, significant gaps remain in water supply, sanitation facilities, and hygiene services. LQAS can be an effective monitoring tool to support long-term multisectoral interventions in protracted emergencies.

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 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)0.007
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 score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.409 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicAsian Geopolitics and EthnographyFrench-language works237,207