Impact of a sanitation intervention on quality of life and mental wellbeing in low-income urban neighbourhoods of Maputo, Mozambique

1. Introduction

Nearly two billion people globally lack access to “basic” sanitation.¹ This deficit leads to 400,000 deaths from diarrhoeal disease annually, as well to the helminth infections and other diseases.² However, inadequate sanitation has further negative consequences for health broadly defined,³ including poorer outcomes across various domains of quality of life (QoL) such as privacy, safety, and dignity.^4–6 For example, women and girls are at risk of infringements of safety and privacy, including violence, when using inadequate sanitation or practising open defecation.^5,7,8 Smelling faeces and touching surfaces in low-quality latrines can trigger disgust and shame.^9–11

Sanitation interventions can have positive health externalities,^12,13 and an excreta-free environment is a public good in that it is non-rival and non-excludable.¹⁴ Provision of this public good is supported by household investments in toilets, which are private goods.^15,16 In studies of what toilet users most value about sanitation, QoL outcomes such as privacy, safety, and dignity are usually high up their list, and often above disease prevention.^9,17,18 Therefore, the expected QoL payoff from a private sanitation investment is an important determinant of whether the public good of an excreta-free environment is achieved.^15,16 Each sanitation-related QoL outcome (such as privacy, safety, and dignity) maps onto one of seven “objective features of QoL” identified by a recent commission.¹⁹ Sanitation-related QoL, then, is the subset of overall QoL which is directly affected by sanitation practices or services.^10,20

Different sanitation interventions plausibly improve sanitation-related QoL to different extents, but most sanitation impact evaluations focus on infectious diseases.²¹ A systematic review of the relationship between sanitation and mental and social well-being concluded that innovation in quantitative measurement of such outcomes is a research priority.⁵ One quantitative study has explored the association in the general population between urban sanitation access and mental wellbeing outcomes,²² and another has done so in rural areas.²³ However, no studies have quantified the broader QoL effect of a specific urban sanitation intervention, with one such study ongoing.²⁴ In this study, we evaluate the effect of a shared urban sanitation intervention on sanitation-related QoL and mental wellbeing in urban Mozambique, as compared to existing use of shared pit latrines.

2. Methods

Participants

Eligible participants for our study were people aged 18 or over and: (i) living in MapSan intervention or control compounds for four or more years, since before the intervention; (ii) still using the type of toilet consistent with intervention/control status (e.g. pit latrine if control). The first criterion ensured that, prior to the intervention, all our participants had been using a pit latrine without a water seal in that same compound they still lived on. This aimed to reduce risk of selection bias, because there had been migration out of and into MapSan-enrolled compounds since 2015. The second criterion was motivated by the knowledge that a small number of control compounds had: (a) received NGO sanitation interventions under a post-MapSan programme; or (b) autonomously upgraded their toilets.

We aimed to recruit two people per compound (one man, one woman) from different households. We used trial records to pre-assess eligibility for the 593 MapSan compounds (clusters), leading to the exclusion of 35 (Figure 1). The two lists of remaining MapSan intervention and control compounds were then randomly reordered, and visited in that new order. Procedures for sampling individuals within a compound are in Online Appendix B, but are summarised as listing of eligible individuals followed by random sampling. A team of four fieldworkers interviewed participants in Portuguese, unless the participant preferred to talk in Changana, a local language in which all interviewers were fluent.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Participant flow diagram showing eligibility, enrolment and analysis

3. Results

We sampled individuals from 424 different households across 272 compounds (clusters), of which 130 were control and 142 intervention, during April-May 2019 (Figure 1). In some compounds, only one man or woman was eligible (mean respondents per cluster: 1.6), which did not affect our study objectives. The response rate amongst eligible participants was 99%. There was no evidence of difference in background characteristics between intervention/control at the 5% level, except for the wealth index score (Table 2). People living in intervention compounds were slightly wealthier than controls, but assets that were different were the less expensive ones (e.g. watch, radio).

The intervention was associated with an adjusted gain in SanQoL of 0.34 (95% CI: 0.29-0.38), noting that SanQoL is measured on a 0-1 scale and the control mean was 0.49 (Table 3). Full regression results are in Online Appendix D. The effect size was very large at 1.6 standard deviations (SD). Comparing effects between the two intervention toilet designs, there was weak evidence (p=0.079) for users of STs having higher SanQoL than users of CSBs (Online Appendix D, Table D-2). Measured on the sanitation VAS, which is scored 0-10, the intervention was associated with a 2.9 point gain (95% CI: 2.4 - 3.4)(Table 3). The effect size was very large at 1.3 SD, similar to that of SanQoL. Considering WHO-5 mental wellbeing, measured on a 0-100 scale, the intervention was associated with a 6.2 point gain (95% CI: 0.3-12.2)(Table 3). The effect size was small at 0.2 SD.

With the caveat that our study was not powered for sub-group analyses, interaction terms provided no evidence for any outcome that women benefitted more from better toilets than men (Online Appendix D, Table D-1). Regardless of the intervention, there was also no evidence that women reported lower SanQoL than men in the sample as a whole, though there was weak evidence (p=0.056) that this was the case for the VAS. Considering elderly people as a sub-group, there no evidence that people aged over 60 benefitted more from better toilets than under-60s (Online Appendix D, Table D-1).

In regressions on individual attribute scores, the intervention was associated with gains across all five SanQoL attributes (Table 4). Effect sizes were largest for safety (1.5 SD) and privacy (1.4 SD). Coefficients on interaction terms for gender and aged over 60 were not significant, as with SanQoL index values.

In the first robustness check, including only covariates significantly different between groups at the 10% level (Table 2), there was no meaningful difference to results for any of the three outcomes (Online Appendix E, Tables E-1 and E-2). Second, when all covariates hypothesised as influencing SanQoL and VAS were included, there was no evidence of omitted variable bias in terms of the size and p-value of the coefficient on the intervention variable. However, the coefficient on the binary covariate for sharing the toilet was negative and significant at the 1% level in both SanQoL and VAS regressions. This finding indicates that sharing a toilet with other households makes people worse off, and is explored as a factorial interaction in Online Appendix F. Third, when all covariates hypothesised as influencing mental wellbeing were included in the WHO-5 regression, there was no evidence of omitted variable bias (Table E-2). Fourth, using a GEE or OLS specification did not affect headline results for SanQoL or VAS (Table E-1). The effect on WHO-5 was significant only at the 10% level in the OLS regression (Table E-2), but OLS is unlikely to be appropriate for the hierarchical structure of our data. Furthermore, residuals were bimodally distributed in the WHO-5 OLS regression, suggesting the GLMM and GEE specifications are preferred. Finally, using mixed-effects ordered logit for SanQoL attribute-level regressions, rather than treating them as continuous variables in GLMM, made no difference to interpretation (Table E-3). We conclude from our robustness checks that our main models were appropriate for testing our hypotheses.

4. Discussion

In this observational study building on the design of the earlier MapSan trial, we find that users of high-quality shared toilets experienced a 1.6 SD gain in sanitation-related quality of life compared to pit latrines, and a 0.2 SD gain in broader mental wellbeing. This intervention had no effect on under-5 health outcomes,²⁷ so our findings demonstrate that better toilets can improve people’s lives beyond infectious disease, at a time when several randomised trials have questioned the health effects of sanitation improvements.²¹

Since all people in intervention compounds were previously sharing a low-quality toilet with the same people in the same location, the mechanism driving our results is likely to be the specific characteristics of intervention toilets. Solid walls and doors likely improved perceptions of privacy, safety and shame compared to PLs with makeshift walls and doors (photos in Online Appendix A). The pour-flush interface was likely to have reduced smells and visible faeces compared to PLs without water seals, improving perceptions of disgust, shame, and health risk. Users value such toilet characteristics – a choice experiment in urban Zambia found willingness to pay (WTP) additional rent for solid toilet doors was 8% of median monthly rent, and WTP for flush toilets as opposed to pit latrines was 5% of rent.³²

While it is intuitive that people using better-quality toilets experience more privacy or less disgust, our contribution is in quantifying this to inform decisions based on comparative effectiveness, which has not previously been done.³³ The fact that SanQoL is specific to sanitation limits its broader relevance. However, such “condition-specific” outcomes focused on experienced symptoms (e.g. of arthritis or asthma) within only a few QoL domains are regularly used to evaluate interventions targeting those specific problems.³⁴ The small effect on mental wellbeing was expected, as it is a more distal outcome than SanQoL. A previous cross-sectional study identified associations of urban sanitation access with WHO-5,²² and our contribution is in evaluating a specific urban sanitation intervention.

Despite willingness to contribute financially to 10-15% of capital costs being an enrolment criterion for both intervention and control in MapSan, it is possible that wealthier people were more likely to uptake the intervention due to being able to afford this contribution. Since our survey was four years after the intervention, any differences could be as a result of the intervention. However, any wealth effect would likely be in the other direction since intervention households reported spending substantially more than controls on both cleaning and maintenance.³⁵

Limitations of our study include that we relied on the controlled before-and-after design of a previous trial in which the intervention was not randomly allocated, risking selection bias. Our design necessitates adjusting for covariates which may be imprecisely measured, and the absence of pre-intervention SanQoL data precluded adjustment for baseline values. While our comparison groups were well-balanced overall, and we adjusted for the only unbalanced covariate, we cannot account for unobserved confounding. We excluded people who had lived in the compound for less than four years to account for in-migration since the intervention. However, risk of bias from out-migration remains, for example if people with certain characteristics were more likely to have moved away. Overall, the magnitude of the effect size for our primary outcome (1.6 SD) means it is unlikely to be explained by bias alone.

As with any subjective self-reported outcome, there is risk of reporting bias which is difficult to account for, though we assume that any measurement error was not correlated with toilet type. In introducing themselves, fieldworkers emphasised that they were not linked to the implementing NGO or government, but intervention respondents may have wanted to appear grateful and control respondents may have wanted to appear badly off. Reporting bias could pose more of a risk to the mental wellbeing finding with its higher p-value, but the WHO-5 questions do not refer to sanitation in any way, so may have been perceived by respondents as being less linked to the intervention.

Since physical environments and sanitary conditions in these parts of Maputo are similar to large portions of other Mozambican cities, it is likely that findings would be generalisable to those settings, as well as parts of other cities in many African countries. However, social environments differ within and beyond Mozambique, and are likely to influence the relationships explored. Future intervention trials should include QoL outcomes such as SanQoL, since these benefits are highly valued by users. Changes in sanitation-specific QoL outcomes such as privacy and disgust are likely to suffer from fewer confounding factors than infectious disease outcomes, since they are more proximal to the service being provided.

5. Conclusion

Quality of life outcomes highly valued by toilet users and can be improved by sanitation interventions. If applied in future impact evaluations, SanQoL, WHO-5 and similar measures could help sanitation decision-makers understand which types of sanitation interventions most improve people’s lives. QoL indices with weighting derived from respondent valuation tasks, such as SanQoL, can also be used in economic evaluation to identify interventions which are most efficient use of resources, not only those which are most effective. The likelihood of positive health externalities remains a core rationale for public investment in sanitation. However, in the almost certain absence of intervention-specific data on health effects, policy-makers are likely to be willing to make more informed decisions on the basis of QoL outcomes which are more easily and quickly measured in their specific setting.

Funding

This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council through a PhD studentship. The fieldwork was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The funders had no role in the identification, design, conduct, or reporting of the analysis.

Competing interests

None declared.

Data availability statement

Deidentified individual participant data, data dictionary and replication code are available open access on the LSHTM data repository: https://doi.org/10.17037/DATA.00002442.