Having a latrine facility is not a guarantee for eliminating open defecation owing to socio-demographic and environmental factors: The case of Machakel district in Ethiopia.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Open defecation practice problem is rampant in most rural areas of developing countries, including Ethiopia. To combat this problem, the Ethiopian government implemented different sanitation interventions including Community-Led Total Sanitation and Hygiene (CLTSH). The CLTSH approach is mainly aimed to eradicate open defecation practice through mobilizing the community to construct a latrine facility and utilize it. Although this intervention has significantly improved households' access to a latrine facility, its impact on bringing behavioral change such as avoiding open defecation is not well studied. OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to assess the prevalence of open defecation among households having their latrine and its determinant factors in rural settings in Northwest Ethiopia. METHODS: A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted in Machakal district from September 1 to 30, 2019. A total of 472 household heads who had a latrine facility and systematically selected from six rural Kebeles of the district, were involved in the study. The data were collected using a structured questionnaire and observational checklist tools through face-to-face interviews and observation methods. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models were run to identify the factors that influence open defecation practice. During the multivariable analysis, statistical significance was declared at the p-value of <0.05 with 95% CI. RESULTS: The prevalence of open defecation practice among household heads who had latrine facility was 27.8% (95% CI, [23.1-32.8]). Female gender (AOR = 2.94, 95% CI [1.13-7.68]), not attending of formal education (AOR = 3.10, CI 95% [1.34-7.13]), having >5 family members (AOR = 1.72, CI 95% [1.05-2.80]), presence of under-five child (AOR = 3.64 CI 95% [2.14-6.21]), preferring leaf as anal cleaning material (AOR = 3.18, CI 95% [1.67-6.08]), having unclean latrine (AOR = 2.15, CI 95% [1.34-3.44]), and having latrine that needs maintenance (AOR = 2.50 CI 95% [1.52-4.11]) variables were associated with open defecation practice. CONCLUSIONS: Among the total respondents, finding more than a quarter of open defecators is concerning for a district that achieved greatly in terms of latrine coverage. This indicates the above-mentioned factors contributed to influence household heads to defecate openly despite having latrines. Therefore, the government and partners need to focus on designing strategies that effectively address determinant factors of open defecation.