Consistent point-of-use water chlorination among households using unimproved water sources and treatment preference in Eastern Ethiopia.

A consistent and correct use of water treatment options is fundamental for health gain from point-of-use water chlorination. In Ethiopia, empirical evidence about the consistent use and preference for by end users is scarce. The current study is intended to explore these issues using Waterguard and Bishan Gari in Kersa Health and Demographic Surveillance Site, Eastern Ethiopia. Data were collected every 2 week for 4 months and analyzed using mixed effects logistic regression. Of 377 households, 31% consistently used Waterguard and Bishan Gari in all the study waves. Product use over time within a household varied based on the perception about the products and the type of products each household received. From the exit assessment, 56% of households stated a preference for Waterguard significantly different from 5.6% of households that stated a preference for Bishan Gari. An intervention for consistent use beyond their availability and accessibility to end users is needed.

Appropriate household water treatment methods in Ethiopia: household use and associated factors based on 2005, 2011, and 2016 EDHS data.

BACKGROUND: Diarrheal disease attributable to water and sanitation can be prevented using point-of-use water treatment. In Ethiopia, a small number of households treat water at point-of-use with appropriate methods. However, evidence on factors associated with household use of these treatment methods is scarce. Therefore, this study is intended to explore the household use of appropriate point-of-use water treatment and associated factors in Ethiopia. METHODS: The data of 2005, 2011, and 2016 Ethiopian demographic and health surveys were used for analysis. Households reportedly treating water with bleach, boiling, filtration, and solar disinfection in each survey are considered as treating with appropriate treatment methods. Household water treatment with these treatment methods and factors associated was assessed using bivariate and multivariable regression. In addition, a region level difference in the treatment use was assessed by using multilevel modeling. RESULTS: The number of households that reported treating water with appropriate water treatment methods was 3.0%, 8.2%, and 6.5% respectively in 2005, 2011, and 2016. Household heads with higher education had 5.99 (95% CI = 3.48, 10.33), 3.61 (95% CI = 2.56, 5.07), and 3.43 (95% CI = 2.19, 6.37) times higher odds of using the treatment methods respectively in 2005, 2011, and 2016 compared to household heads who had no education. There was a significantly high number of households that used appropriate water treatment methods in 2011 (AOR = 2.78, 95% CI = 2.16, 3.57) and 2016 (AOR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.64, 3.89) compared to 2005 data. In pooled data analysis, the reported use of the treatment methods is associated with household head education, residency, drinking water sources, and owning radio and television. From a multilevel modeling, within-region variation is higher than between-region variations in the use of treatment methods in each survey. CONCLUSIONS: Below 10% of households reportedly treating water at point-of-use in each survey attributable to different factors. Designing intervention strategies for wide-scale use of treatment methods at the country level is fundamental.