Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Questionnaire findings and water quality in the two regions of Burkina Faso, February 2015

From: Prevalence of intestinal parasitic infections and associated risk factors among schoolchildren in the Plateau Central and Centre-Ouest regions of Burkina Faso

Children (n = 385) [n (%)] Plateau Central [n (%)] Centre-Ouest [n (%)]
Selected KAP indicatorsa
Handwashingb
 Before eating 338 (87.8) 164 (82.8) 174 (93.1)
 After eating 55 (14.3) 25 (12.6) 30 (16.0)
 After playing 28 (7.3) 12 (6.1) 16 (8.6)
 After defaecation 85 (22.1) 41 (20.7) 44 (23.5)
 Do not wash hands 16 (4.2) 15 (7.6) 1 (0.5)
 Water only 344 (89.4) 183 (92.4) 161 (86.1)
 Water and soap 306 (79.5) 153 (77.3) 153 (81.8)
 With ash 12 (3.1) 0 (0.0) 12 (6.4)
 With mud 1 (0.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.5)
Hygienec
 Lower category (1) 56 (14.6) 33 (16.7) 23 (12.3)
 Middle score (2) 227 (59.0) 119 (60.1) 108 (57.7)
 Best category (3) 102 (26.4) 46 (23.2) 56 (30.0)
Sanitary practices at schoolk
 Using latrines at school 307 (79.7) 181 (91.4) 126 (67.4)
 Open defaecation (fields, bush) 71 (18.5) 12 (6.1) 59 (31.5)
 Using latrines at home/at teachers’ house 7 (1.8) 5 (2.5) 2 (1.1)
Drinking waterd
 Drinking water from school 322 (83.6) 174 (87.9) 148 (79.1)
 Bringing drinking water from home 239 (62.1) 112 (56.6) 127 (67.9)
Quality of water in children’s drinking cups (n = 113)
 Coliform bacteriak 101 (89.4) 46 (80.7) 55 (98.2)
Escherichia coli k 55 (48.7) 17 (29.8) 38 (67.9)
 Faecal streptococci 101 (89.4) 50 (87.7) 51 (91.1)
 Safe to drink without prior treatment 3 (2.7) 3 (5.3) 0 (0.0)
Households (n = 385)
Household WASH characteristicse
Type of latrines used
 Flush toilet (i) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
 VIP latrinef (ii) 14 (3.6) 12 (6.1) 2 (1.1)
 Traditional pit latrine (iii) 83 (21.6) 65 (32.8) 18 (9.6)
 EcoSang (iv) 60 (15.6) 33 (16.7) 27 (14.4)
 Samplat latrine (v) 15 (3.9) 13 (6.6) 2 (1.1)
 No facilities/open defaecation (vi) 213 (55.3) 75 (37.9) 138 (73.8)
 Total improvedh (i, ii, iv, v) 89 (23.1) 58 (29.3) 31 (16.6)
 Total unimprovedi (iii, vi) 296 (76.9) 140 (70.7) 156 (83.4)
Preferred source of drinking water during the rainy season
 Private tab 1 (0.3) 1 (0.5) 0 (0.0)
 Shared tab 1 (0.3) 1 (0.5) 0 (0.0)
 Public tab 25 (6.5) 18 (9.1) 7 (3.7)
 Improved source 4 (1.0) 4 (2.1) 0 (0.0)
 Un-improved source 8 (2.1) 0 (0.0) 8 (4.3)
 Borehole water 249 (64.6) 161 (81.3) 88 (47.1)
 Collected rain water 1 (0.3) 1 (0.5) 0 (0.0)
 Surface water 3 (0.8) 1 (0.5) 2 (1.1)
 Wells 87 (22.6) 14 (7.1) 73 (39.0)
 Others 6 (1.5) 1 (0.5) 5 (2.7)
Preferred source of drinking water during the dry season
 Private tab 1 (0.3) 1 (0.5) 0 (0.0)
 Shared tab 2 (0.5) 2 (1.0) 0 (0.0)
 Public tab 25 (6.5) 18 (9.1) 7 (3.7)
 Improved source 4 (1.0) 0 (0.0) 4 (2.1)
 Un-improved source 9 (2.4) 0 (0.0) 9 (4.8)
 Borehole water 261 (67.8) 168 (84.9) 93 (49.7)
 Surface water 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
 Wells 81 (21.0) 8 (4.0) 73 (39.0)
 Others 2 (0.5) 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5)
Household drinking water storage
 Open 278 (72.2) 141 (71.2) 137 (73.3)
 Pot or canary 290 (75.3) 146 (73.7) 144 (77.0)
 Basin or bowl 16 (4.2) 2 (1.0) 14 (7.5)
 Canister (plastic jerrican) 59 (15.3) 38 (19.2) 21 (11.2)
 Others 18 (4.7) 11 (5.6) 7 (3.7)
 No storage 2 (0.5) 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5)
 Household drinking water treated prior to consumptionjk 69 (17.9) 21 (10.6) 48 (25.7)
Water quality of household drinking water (n = 95)
 Coliform bacteria 89 (93.7) 42 (89.4) 47 (97.9)
Escherichia coli k 61 (64.2) 23 (48.9) 38 (79.2)
 Faecal streptococci 88 (92.6) 42 (89.4) 46 (95.8)
 Safe to drink without prior treatment 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Water quality of community sources (n = 37)
 Coliform bacteria 13 (35.1) 4 (22.4) 9 (47.4)
Escherichia coli 9 (24.3) 0 (0.0) 9 (47.4)
 Faecal streptococci 10 (27.0) 2 (11.1) 8 (42.1)
 Safe to drink without prior treatment 22 (59.5) 12 (66.7) 10 (52.6)
  1. aKnowledge, attitudes and practices
  2. bMultiple responses were possible for the variables characterising the mode (how) and frequency (when) of handwashing
  3. cA new variable for hygiene behaviour was created using factor analysis with the mode and frequency of handwashing. Children were classified into three categories with poor, middle and good hygiene behaviours
  4. dMultiple responses were possible for the variables characterising the child’s drinking water consumption at school
  5. eWater, sanitation, and hygiene
  6. fVentilated improved pit (VIP) latrine is an improved type of pit latrine, which helps remove odours and prevent flies from breeding and escaping. Excreta are collected in a dry pit which has a vent pipe covered with a fly-proof screen at the top
  7. gEcological sanitation (EcoSan) toilets are linked to a closed system that does not need water. The toilet is based on the principle of safely recycling excreta resources to create a valuable resource for agriculture
  8. hThe improved sanitation category includes all sanitation facilities that hygienically separate human excreta from human contact; i.e. pit latrine with slab, VIP and EcoSan toilets
  9. iThe unimproved sanitation category includes traditional pit latrines and no facilities (open defaecation)
  10. jHouseholds having reported to treat their drinking water through filtration and sedimentation
  11. kSignificant regional differences were found for children’s sanitary practices (dichotomised variable classified as using latrines vs. open defaecation, χ 2 = 4.67, df = 1, P = 0.03), water quality of children’s drinking water cups (coliform bacteria, χ 2 = 5.87, df = 1, P = 0.02; Escherichia coli, χ 2 = 15.51, df = 1, P < 0.001); household water treatment (P = 0.02); and water quality of household drinking water (Escherichia coli, χ 2 = 8.97, df = 7, P = 0.003) using mixed logistic regression models with random intercepts at the level of schools