27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Open defecation-free slippage and its associated factors in Ethiopia: a systematic review

      review-article
      ,
      Systematic Reviews
      BioMed Central
      Defecation, Hygiene, Sanitation, Ethiopia

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Recent studies have shown an increase in open defecation and slippage of open defecation-free certified villages in Ethiopia, despite significant progress the country made on sanitation programs. Hence, realizing of existing facts, this study was conducted aiming at a critical review of available literature and to provide consolidated data showing the level of slippage and its associated factors in Ethiopia.

          Methods

          Systematic literature searches were performed from four international databases. The search involved articles published from December 1, 2013, up to June 4, 2019. The Cochran’s Q and I 2 test statistics were used to check heterogeneity among the studies. To negotiate heterogeneity from qualitative data, we used a mixed-method approach. The researchers also conducted a publication bias assessment and sensitivity analysis. A random effect meta-analysis was employed to determine the pooled estimates of open defecation free slippage rate with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The data analysis was performed using the CMA V.3 software program.

          Result

          After screening 1382 studies, 12 studies were finally included in this systematic review. The estimated pooled rate of open defecation-free slippage in Ethiopia was 15.9% (95% CI 12.9–19.4%). The main contributing factors for open defecation-free slippage were lack of technical support, financial constraints, low-quality building materials, improper program implementation, and lack of sanitation marketing.

          Conclusion

          It was estimated that 1 out of 6 Ethiopian households engaged in open defecation after they have certified open defecation-free status, implying the low possibility of achieving sustainable development goals of 2030, which aims to ensure sanitation for all. Therefore, the government of Ethiopia and donors should better give special attention to the following options: (1) awareness for open defecation-free slippage, (2) launch a post-open defecation-free program, and (3) encourage research on pro-poor sustainable sanitation technologies.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-020-01511-6.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement.

              In the course of performing systematic reviews on the prevalence of low back and neck pain, we required a tool to assess the risk of study bias. Our objectives were to (1) modify an existing checklist and (2) test the final tool for interrater agreement. The final tool consists of 10 items addressing four domains of bias plus a summary risk of bias assessment. Two researchers tested the interrater agreement of the tool by independently assessing 54 randomly selected studies. Interrater agreement overall and for each individual item was assessed using the proportion of agreement and Kappa statistic. Raters found the tool easy to use, and there was high interrater agreement: overall agreement was 91% and the Kappa statistic was 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.76, 0.86). Agreement was almost perfect for the individual items on the tool and moderate for the summary assessment. We have addressed a research gap by modifying and testing a tool to assess risk of study bias. Further research may be useful for assessing the applicability of the tool across different conditions. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                ayalewthomas@gmail.com
                Journal
                Syst Rev
                Syst Rev
                Systematic Reviews
                BioMed Central (London )
                2046-4053
                3 November 2020
                3 November 2020
                2020
                : 9
                : 252
                Affiliations
                GRID grid.411903.e, ISNI 0000 0001 2034 9160, Department of Environmental Health Sciences and Technology, , Jimma University, ; P.O. Box 387, Jimma, Ethiopia
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0399-4106
                Article
                1511
                10.1186/s13643-020-01511-6
                7641843
                33143715
                9cb69c36-3eb9-407f-99d0-a6eb3fbb1423
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 10 June 2020
                : 26 October 2020
                Categories
                Systematic Review Update
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Public health
                defecation,hygiene,sanitation,ethiopia
                Public health
                defecation, hygiene, sanitation, ethiopia

                Comments

                Comment on this article