Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Understanding and defining sanitation insecurity: women’s gendered experiences of urination, defecation and menstruation in rural Odisha, India
  1. Bethany A Caruso1,2,
  2. Thomas F Clasen2,
  3. Craig Hadley3,
  4. Kathryn M Yount4,5,
  5. Regine Haardörfer1,
  6. Manaswini Rout6,
  7. Munmun Dasmohapatra6,
  8. Hannah LF Cooper1
  1. 1Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  2. 2Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  3. 3Department of Anthropology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  4. 4Hubert Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  5. 5Department of Sociology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  6. 6London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Bethany A Caruso; bcaruso{at}emory.edu

Abstract

Background Research suggests that the lived experience of inadequate sanitation may contribute to poor health outcomes above and beyond pathogen exposure, particularly among women. The goal of this research was to understand women’s lived experiences of sanitation by documenting their urination-related, defecation-related and menstruation-related concerns, to use findings to develop a definition of sanitation insecurity among women in low-income settings and to develop a conceptual model to explain the factors that contribute to their experiences, including potential behavioural and health consequences.

Methods We conducted 69 Free-List Interviews and eight focus group discussions in a rural population in Odisha, India to identify women’s sanitation concerns and to build an understanding of sanitation insecurity.

Findings We found that women at different life stages in rural Odisha, India have a multitude of unaddressed urination, defecation and menstruation concerns. Concerns fell into four domains: the sociocultural context, the physical environment, the social environment and personal constraints. These varied by season, time of day, life stage and toilet ownership, and were linked with an array of adaptations (ie, suppression, withholding food and water) and consequences (ie, scolding, shame, fear). Our derived definition and conceptual model of sanitation insecurity reflect these four domains.

Discussion To sincerely address women’s sanitation needs, our findings indicate that more is needed than facilities that change the physical environment alone. Efforts to enable urinating, defecating and managing menstruation independently, comfortably, safely, hygienically, privately, healthily, with dignity and as needed require transformative approaches that also address the gendered, sociocultural and social environments that impact women despite facility access. This research lays the groundwork for future sanitation studies to validate or refine the proposed definition and to assess women’s sanitation insecurity, even among those who have latrines, to determine what may be needed to improve women’s sanitation circumstances.

  • qualitative study
  • environmental health
  • hygiene
  • public health

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Seye Abimbola

  • Twitter @Caruso_Bethany

  • Contributors BAC conceived the research. TFC, HLFC, CH, KY and RH contributed substantially to research design and tool preparation. MR and MD contributed substantially to tool preparation. BAC, MR and MD carried out the research. BAC led data analysis. MR and MD contributed substantially to data analysis. BC wrote the paper with significant contributions from TFC, HLFC, CH, KY, RH, MR and MD.

  • Funding This research was made possible with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation(BMGF). The BMGF had no role in research design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of findings or the decision to submit this article. BAC was funded in part by the NIH/NIGMS Insti-tutional Research and Academic Career Development Award(IRACDA), 5K12-GM000680-17.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval Emory University Institutional Review Board (Atlanta, GA) and Xavier Institute of Management Ethical Review Committee (Bhubaneswar, India)

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement No additional data are available.