You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 12, Issue 10
  • Impact of a sanitation intervention on quality of life and mental well-being in low-income urban neighbourhoods of Maputo, Mozambique: an observational study

Article Text

Article menu
Health economics
Original research
Impact of a sanitation intervention on quality of life and mental well-being in low-income urban neighbourhoods of Maputo, Mozambique: an observational study
  1. Ian Ross1,2,
  2. Giulia Greco1,
  3. Zaida Adriano3,
  4. Rassul Nala4,
  5. Joe Brown5,
  6. Charles Opondo6,7,
  7. Oliver Cumming2
  1. 1 Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  2. 2 Department of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  3. 3 WE Consult, Maputo, Mozambique
  4. 4 Instituto Nacional de Saúde, Maputo, Mozambique
  5. 5 Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
  6. 6 Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  7. 7 Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ian Ross; ian.ross{at}lshtm.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives Toilet users often report valuing outcomes such as privacy and safety more highly than reduced disease, but effects of urban sanitation interventions on such outcomes have never been assessed quantitatively. In this study, we evaluate the impact of a shared sanitation intervention on quality of life (QoL) and mental well-being.

Design We surveyed individuals living in intervention and control clusters of a recent non-randomised controlled trial, and used generalised linear mixed regression models to make an observational comparison of outcomes between arms.

Setting Low-income unsewered areas of Maputo City, Mozambique.

Participants We interviewed 424 participants, 222 from the prior trial’s intervention group and 202 from the control group.

Interventions The control group used low-quality pit latrines. The intervention group received high-quality shared toilets, with users contributing 10%–15% of capital cost.

Outcomes Our primary outcome was the Sanitation-related QoL (SanQoL) index, which applies respondent-derived weights to combine perceptions of sanitation-related disgust, privacy, safety, health and shame. Secondary outcomes were the WHO-5 mental well-being index and a sanitation Visual Analogue Scale.

Results The intervention group experienced a 1.6 SD gain in SanQoL compared with the control group. This adjusted SanQoL gain was 0.34 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.38) on a 0–1 scale with control mean 0.49. Effect sizes were largest for safety and privacy attributes. Intervention respondents also experienced a 0.2 SD gain in mental well-being. The adjusted gain was 6.2 (95% CI 0.3 to 12.2) on a 0–100 scale with control mean 54.4.

Conclusions QoL outcomes are highly valued by toilet users and can be improved by sanitation interventions. Such outcomes should be measured in future sanitation trials, to help identify interventions which most improve people’s lives. Since SanQoL weights are derived from respondent valuation, our primary result can be used in economic evaluation.

  • Public health
  • HEALTH ECONOMICS
  • Economics

Data availability statement

Data are available in a public, open access repository. Deidentified individual participant data, data dictionary and replication code are available open access on the LSHTM data repository (ref. 39).

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062517

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.

    STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

    • We achieved balance on observable characteristics by enrolling individuals living in intervention and control clusters of a recent non-randomised controlled trial.

    • Because intervention compound residents previously shared a low-quality toilet in the same location, the mechanism driving our results is likely to be the characteristics of intervention toilets.

    • No previous study has evaluated the impact of an urban sanitation intervention on outcomes such as user-reported privacy, safety or mental well-being.

    • Limitations include the absence of preintervention outcome data, risk of bias from the eligibility criterion of still using the type of toilet consistent with intervention/control status.

    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 helminth infections and other diseases.2 However, inadequate sanitation has negative consequences beyond infectious disease, including for perceived outcomes such as privacy, safety and dignity.3–5 These outcomes are considered aspects of quality of life (QoL) under the capability approach,6 since they capture what people can be and do. Furthermore, these outcomes map onto regularly defined features of QoL in general, such as health, personal security and environmental conditions.7 8 Sanitation-related QoL (SanQoL) is then defined as the subset of overall QoL which is directly affected by sanitation practices or services.9

    Many factors are hypothesised to moderate effects of sanitation interventions on QoL outcomes.5 9 Some of these factors relate to individual characteristics. For example, women and girls might be at greater risk of infringements to their sanitation-related safety and privacy than men and boys.4 10 11 People with reduced mobility such as older or disabled people may be more likely to fear falling into a pit latrine.12 13 Other factors relate to the environment. For example, someone using a nearby toilet in an urban neighbourhood perceived as unsafe may feel less secure using it at night than someone in a rural area.14

    In studies of what toilet users most value about sanitation, QoL outcomes such as privacy or status are usually high up their list, and often above disease prevention.15–17 Therefore, expected QoL payoffs from household sanitation investments are important determinants of whether the public good of an excreta-free environment is achieved.18 19 Since different sanitation interventions plausibly improve QoL to different extents, measurement of such outcomes in sanitation impact evaluations may help identify the most effective interventions.

    However, infectious disease outcomes have often been the focus of sanitation impact evaluations.20 A systematic review of qualitative studies of sanitation’s relationship with mental and social well-being identified innovation in quantitative measurement of such outcomes as a research priority.4 One quantitative study has explored the association in the general population between urban sanitation access and mental well-being outcomes,21 and another has done so in rural areas.22 No studies have quantified the broader QoL effect of a specific urban sanitation intervention, with one such study ongoing,23 and another undertaken in a rural area.24 In this study, we evaluate the effect of a shared urban sanitation intervention on SanQoL and mental well-being in urban Mozambique, as compared with existing use of shared pit latrines.

    Methods

    Setting

    In Mozambique, only 37% of the population has access to basic sanitation as defined by WHO/UNICEF.1 Maputo city, Mozambique’s capital, has a population of 1.1 million, with the majority living in basic settlements with unpaved roads.25 Pit latrines are used by 41% of people, and less than half of faecal waste is safely managed.26 Our study site comprises low-income neighbourhoods in a 10 km2 area of the Nhlamankulu district (further detail and maps in online supplemental appendix A). In this area, the poorest people live in informally walled ‘compounds’ with many households sharing the same toilet. Though 99% have access to on-premises piped water, low-quality pit latrines are common. Such latrines often have unlined pits and squatting slabs made of wood or tyres, and no water seal (u-bend) providing a barrier to smells and flies. Privacy is a challenge since latrine walls are usually made with scrap corrugated iron or plastic sheeting, often with gaps and holes. Doors are makeshift and roofs uncommon.

    Supplemental material

    Study design

    We report an observational study sampling households from the intervention and control clusters of a prior non-randomised trial with a controlled before-and-after design (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362932).27 Intervention compounds in the Maputo Sanitation trial (MapSan) were identified in 2015–2016 using the following criteria: (1) inhabitants sharing poor-quality sanitation; (2) at least 12 inhabitants; (3) inhabitants willing to contribute financially to construction; (4) legal on-plot piped water; (5) located in predefined neighbourhoods; (6) sufficient space for construction; (7) accessible for transportation of construction materials and (8) water table low enough for septic tank installation.

    The MapSan trial enrolled the compound if there was at least one resident child younger than 48 months. As each intervention compound was enrolled, investigators concurrently enrolled a control compound according to criteria 1–4 above and by number of inhabitants (cluster size). Control compounds were located in the same or adjacent neighbourhoods. MapSan concluded that the intervention had no effect on any measure of child health, with a 24-month diarrhoea prevalence ratio of 0.84 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.51).7

    Participants

    Eligible participants for our study were people aged 18 or over and: (1) living in MapSan intervention or control compounds for 4 or more years, since before the intervention; (2) still using the type of toilet consistent with intervention/control status (eg, 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 an unknown number of control compounds had: (A) received non-government organisation (NGO) sanitation interventions under a post-MapSan programme or (B) autonomously upgraded their toilets. This criterion aimed to ensure a sufficient sample of people using low-quality toilets for the purposes of validity assessments reported elsewhere,28 in the context of unknown levels of subsequent intervention and upgrading.

    We aimed to recruit two people per compound (one man, one woman) from different households. We used trial records to preassess 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 supplemental appendix B. They are summarised as inspection of the toilet used to assess eligibility, followed by listing of eligible individuals and then 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.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Participant flow diagram showing eligibility, enrolment and analysis.

    Interventions

    The intervention we evaluated was implemented by Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor, an NGO. Compounds were provided with a subsidised pour-flush toilet with a water seal and concrete superstructure, discharging to a septic tank with soakaway (photos and further intervention details in online supplemental appendix A). Two toilet types were provided, depending on user numbers. A shared toilet (ST) with one stance (cubicle) was designed for around 15 people, while a community sanitation block (CSB) with two stances was designed for at least 21 people. Both STs and CSBs had metal doors lockable from the inside. Compound inhabitants had to pay a 10%–15% capital contribution—approximately US$120 for CSB (2015 prices) and US$80 for ST.

    Outcomes

    The primary outcome is an index of SanQoL, deriving from a capability-based questionnaire informed by qualitative research.9 28 SanQoL measures aspects of self-perceived QoL which are directly affected by sanitation practices or services. Validity and reliability of SanQoL were previously assessed in the Maputo setting through cognitive interviews and psychometric analysis.28 The five SanQoL attributes are disgust, health, privacy, safety and shame, measured on a four-level frequency scale (table 1). Responses are combined as an index by weighting attributes according to their relative importance, assessed via a ranking exercise undertaken with all study participants (online supplemental appendix B). The ensuing weights, which sum to 1 (table 1), were used to calculate SanQoL index values on a 0–1 scale. Higher scores are better, with 0 representing ‘no sanitation-related capability’ and 1 ‘full sanitation-related capability’. Histograms of outcome variables by group are in online supplemental appendix C.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    SanQoL attributes and weights

    The second outcome is a sanitation Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). We asked people to indicate on a paper-based 0–10 scale how they felt about their ‘level of sanitation today’, where 0 is ‘worst imaginable sanitation’ and 10 is ‘best imaginable sanitation’ (online supplemental appendix B). The rationale for including the sanitation VAS was to explore whether an effect size comparable to that for SanQoL would be seen when people rated their level of sanitation directly rather than via questionnaire items.

    The third outcome is the WHO-5 mental well-being index, a multiattribute instrument for assessing subjective mental well-being.29 It comprises five items related to feeling cheerful, calm, active, well rested and finding enjoyment in daily life, scored on a frequency scale (online supplemental appendix B). Scores are summed with equal weighting and rescaled to 0–100, with higher scores better. The rationale for including WHO-5 was that mental well-being is thought to be influenced by sanitation but, unlike SanQoL, is not specific to sanitation.4

    Hypotheses

    We analysed participants according to trial arm, to test the overarching hypothesis that the intervention was associated with an improvement in QoL. Specific hypotheses were, first, that the intervention would be associated with higher SanQoL index values and sanitation VAS scores, because better-quality toilets have the potential to improve people’s sanitation-related capabilities.9 14 Second, we hypothesised that the intervention would be associated with higher mental well-being (WHO-5) scores, based on qualitative evidence4 and earlier cross-sectional studies.21 22

    We carried out exploratory moderation analyses for which the study was not powered. We assessed the hypotheses that for all three outcomes any effect would be larger for women than men,30 31 and larger for elderly people (aged 60+)32 than non-elderly.12

    Statistical analyses

    The sample size calculation for the number of participants to be surveyed was estimated according to a formula for the comparison of two means with 80% power and significance at 0.05. The required sample size to detect a 0.05 mean difference in SanQoL with an SD of 0.15 and intracluster correlation coefficient of 0.4 was estimated as 398. We computed a wealth index using principal components analysis,33 using the asset list from the most recent Mozambican Demographic and Health Survey. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant evidence of association. We ran analyses in Stata V.17.34

    To test hypotheses, we used generalised linear mixed models (GLMM), with gaussian distribution and identity link. Analyses were not prespecified. The model for SanQoL index values was as follows, with other hypotheses tested using the same model structure but a different dependent variable.

    Embedded Image

    where:

    Embedded Image represents the SanQoL index value for individual j in compound i .

    T is 1 for intervention and 0 for control.

    Embedded Image is a vector of covariates.

    Embedded Image is a constant with no interpretation in this case.

    Embedded Image is a coefficient and β a vector of coefficients.

    Embedded Image is a random effect at the compound level.

    Embedded Image is the error term.

    SEs were clustered at the compound level, since the intervention was delivered at this level, requiring the assumption that errors are not correlated across compounds. Spatial distribution of compounds was within one small area of Maputo (map in online supplemental appendix A). We included two types of covariates in Xij . First, we adjusted for characteristics which were unbalanced at the 5% level between groups (table 2), that is, the wealth index only. Second, we included binary variables for gender and being elderly (aged 60+), because they are considered predictive of the participant’s response to the intervention (as hypothesised in moderation analyses outlined above).35 36 Only two participants had missing data for outcomes or covariates (one for WHO-5, one for the wealth index).

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Characteristics of sample

    To test the hypothesis that intervention effects would be larger for women than men, we included a factorial interaction with T for the gender variable. To test the hypothesis that intervention effects would be larger for older people, we included a factorial interaction with T for the aged 60+ binary variable. As an additional exploratory analysis, we assessed effects on each of the five SanQoL attributes individually, by regressing on their raw scores (ranging 0–3). The rationale was to explore whether larger effect sizes were seen on some dimensions than others.

    We assessed the sensitivity of results as follows. First, we included in Xij only covariates significantly different between groups at the 10% level (table 2) and excluded the gender and aged 60+ binary variables. Second, we included additional covariates hypothesised as predicting SanQoL and VAS (as well as gender and being aged 60+): whether the dwelling was rented, the number of people sharing a toilet stance, and whether the toilet was shared with other households. Third, we included additional covariates hypothesised as predicting mental well-being: having a partner, being in moderate pain, or having moderate problems walking. Fourth, we explored whether using a GEE or ordinary least squares (OLS) specification instead of GLMM affected the results. We include the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist,37 as well as a reflexivity statement38 (online supplemental appendix D).

    Ethical approval

    The study received prior approval from the Comité Nacional de Bioética para a Saúde (IRB00002657) at the Ministry of Health in Mozambique, and the Research Ethics Committee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (Ref: 14609). Informed, written consent was obtained from all participants. Data have been published in accordance with consent.39

    Patient and public involvement

    Members of the public were not involved in the design or conduct of this specific study. However, members of the public were involved in development of the SanQoL outcome measure as: (1) participants in the qualitative research informing attribute identification9 and (2) participants in the piloting and cognitive interviews informing item development.28

    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). The response rate among 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). There were two further differences at the 10% level (age and secondary education). People living in intervention compounds were slightly wealthier than controls, but assets that were different were the less expensive ones (eg, watch, radio).

    Primary outcome

    The intervention was associated with an adjusted gain in SanQoL of 0.34 (95% CI 0.29 to 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 supplemental appendix E. The effect size was very large at 1.6 SD. None of the three covariates (wealth, gender and aged 60+) were significant at the 5% level. The additional exploratory analyses regressing on each of the five SanQoL attributes individually are reported in online supplemental appendix E.

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Effects on primary and secondary outcomes

    Secondary outcomes

    Measured on the sanitation VAS, which is scored 0–10, the intervention was associated with a 2.9 point gain (95% CI 2.4 to 3.4)(table 3). The effect size was very large at 1.3 SD, similar to that for SanQoL. Considering WHO-5 mental well-being, measured on a 0–100 scale, the intervention was associated with a 6.2 point gain (95% CI 0.3 to 12.2)(table 3). The effect size was small at 0.2 SD. There was evidence for people aged 60+ having lower mental well-being outcomes across the sample (online supplemental appendix E). For neither secondary outcome were any other covariates significant at the 5% level.

    Moderating effects

    Recalling that our study was not powered for subgroup analyses, including an interaction term for the intervention with gender provided no evidence for any outcome that women benefited more from better toilets than men (table 4). There was also no evidence that people aged 60+ benefitted more than under-60s, for any outcome.

    View this table:
    Table 4

    Moderating effects on outcomes by gender and aged 60+

    Sensitivity analyses

    When only covariates significantly different between groups at the 10% level were included (table 2), there was no meaningful difference to results for any of the three outcomes (online supplemental appendix F). Second, when further covariates hypothesised as predicting SanQoL and VAS were included, there was no evidence of omitted variable bias in terms of the sizes and p values of coefficients 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, indicating that those across the sample sharing toilets with other households had worse SanQoL, is explored as a factorial interaction in online supplemental appendix G. Third, when all covariates hypothesised as predicting mental well-being were included in the WHO-5 regression, there was no evidence of omitted variable bias. Fourth, using a GEE or OLS specification did not affect headline results for SanQoL or VAS. The effect on WHO-5 was significant only at the 10% level in the OLS regression, 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 GLMM/GEE specifications are preferred. We conclude from our sensitivity analyses that our main models were appropriate for testing our hypotheses. 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 supplemental file 1 - Appendix E).

    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 SanQoL compared with pit latrines, and a 0.2 SD gain in broader mental well-being. A non-randomised controlled trial of this intervention found no effect on under-5 health outcomes.27 Therefore, 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.20

    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 with PLs with makeshift walls and doors (photos in online supplemental appendix A). The pour-flush interface was likely to have reduced smells and visible faeces compared with 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.40

    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.41 The fact that SanQoL is specific to sanitation limits its broader relevance. However, such ‘condition-specific’ outcomes focused on experienced symptoms (eg, of arthritis or asthma) within only a few QoL domains are regularly used to evaluate interventions targeting those specific problems.42 The small effect on mental well-being was expected, as it is a more distal outcome than SanQoL. A previous cross-sectional study identified associations of urban sanitation access with WHO-5,21 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 4 years after the intervention, wealth differences could be as a result of the intervention. However, any wealth effect might be in the other direction since intervention households reported spending substantially more than controls on both cleaning and maintenance.43

    Our hypotheses about women benefitting more than men and elderly people more than non-elderly were not supported. While our study was not powered for these analyses, p values on interaction terms were very large in all cases (table 4), suggesting that increased power may not have altered results. In the main analyses without interactions (table 3), neither gender nor aged 60+ covariates were significant at the 5% level, except in the case of aged 60+ for the mental well-being outcome (online supplemental appendix E). These hypotheses were informed by the qualitative literature,4 10–13 and we are not aware of any quantitative evidence for sanitation interventions disproportionately benefitting women or older people for any QoL outcome. Evidence for gendered monetary valuation of toilet attributes in the WTP literature is also mixed. Studies of WTP for latrine slabs (in Tanzania),44 and for other toilet attributes (in Zambia)39 44 find no evidence of gendered differences in valuations. A WTP study in Kenya found higher uptake of discount vouchers among men.44

    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 eligibility criterion of having lived on the compound since before the intervention aimed to reduce risk of bias from in-migration to intervention compounds as a result of the high-quality sanitation facilities. This criterion may have introduced bias if differential rates of out-migration took place, though the MapSan trial found no evidence of this between 2015 and 2018.27 Our eligibility criterion of still using the type of toilet consistent with intervention/control status aimed to ensure the integrity of validity assessments reported elsewhere.28 However, it also meant that this study does not provide an unbiased estimate of the effect of the intervention. 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 unbalanced covariates, we cannot account for unobserved confounding. The magnitude of the effect size (1.6 SD) for our primary outcome means it is unlikely to be explained by bias alone. The finding for the mental well-being outcome is more precarious, however, due to its smaller effect size (0.2 SD) and higher p value (0.04).

    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 well-being 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. A final limitation is that we did not prespecify a statistical analysis plan.

    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 could 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, 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.

    Conclusion

    QoL outcomes are valued by toilet users and can be improved by sanitation interventions. If applied in future impact evaluations alongside health outcomes, SanQoL, WHO-5 and similar measures could help sanitation decision-makers understand which types of sanitation interventions most improve people’s QoL as well as prevent disease. Some interventions may improve one but not the other. 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.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available in a public, open access repository. Deidentified individual participant data, data dictionary and replication code are available open access on the LSHTM data repository (ref. 39).

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    Ethics approval

    The study received prior approval from the Comité Nacional de Bioética para a Saúde (IRB00002657) at the Ministry of Health in Mozambique, and the Research Ethics Committee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (Ref: 14609). Informed, written consent was obtained from all participants. Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.

    Acknowledgments

    We greatly appreciated the cooperation of survey respondents. We also appreciated the efforts of the fieldworkers employed by WE Consult: Euclimia Titosse, Carla Panguene, João-Pedro Guambe and Faustino Benzane. The authors gratefully acknowledge the technical and logistical support received from Vasco Parente and his team at WSUP Mozambique. We benefitted from the comments of Roxanne Kovacs and seminar participants at the Global Health Economics Centre at LSHTM, as well as from Britta Augsburg and Antonella Bancalari.

    References

    1. 1.↵
      1. WHO & UNICEF
      . Progress on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene 2000-2020 five years into the SDGs. Geneva, 2021.
    2. 2.↵
      2. Prüss-Ustün A ,
      3. Wolf J ,
      4. Bartram J , et al
      . Burden of disease from inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene for selected adverse health outcomes: an updated analysis with a focus on low- and middle-income countries. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2019;222:765–77.doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2019.05.004 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31088724
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    3. 3.↵
      2. Novotný J ,
      3. Hasman J ,
      4. Lepič M
      . Contextual factors and motivations affecting rural community sanitation in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2018;221:121–33.doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.10.018 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29133138
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    4. 4.↵
      2. Sclar GD ,
      3. Penakalapati G ,
      4. Caruso BA , et al
      . Exploring the relationship between sanitation and mental and social well-being: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Soc Sci Med 2018;217:121–34.doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.09.016 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30316053
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    5. 5.↵
      2. Caruso BA ,
      3. Clasen TF ,
      4. Hadley C , et al
      . Understanding and defining sanitation insecurity: women’s gendered experiences of urination, defecation and menstruation in rural Odisha, India. BMJ Glob Health 2017;2:e000414.doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000414
    6. 6.↵
      2. Sen A
      . Equality of what? In: The Tanner Lecture on human values. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980: 197–220.
    7. 7.↵
      2. Stiglitz J ,
      3. Sen A ,
      4. Fitoussi J-P
      . Report by the Commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress 2009.
    8. 8.↵
      2. Nussbaum M
      . Creating capabilities: the human development approach. Harvard University Press, 2011.
    9. 9.↵
      2. Ross I ,
      3. Cumming O ,
      4. Dreibelbis R , et al
      . How does sanitation influence people's quality of life? qualitative research in low-income areas of Maputo, Mozambique. Soc Sci Med 2021;272:113709.doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113709 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33517125
      OpenUrlPubMed
    10. 10.↵
      2. Jadhav A ,
      3. Weitzman A ,
      4. Smith-Greenaway E
      . Household sanitation facilities and women’s risk of non-partner sexual violence in India. BMC Public Health 2016;16:1–10.doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3797-z
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. 11.↵
      2. Winter SC ,
      3. Barchi F
      . Access to sanitation and violence against women: evidence from demographic health survey (DHS) data in Kenya. Int J Environ Health Res 2016;26:291–305.doi:10.1080/09603123.2015.1111309 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26593879
      OpenUrlPubMed
    12. 12.↵
      2. Groce N ,
      3. Bailey N ,
      4. Lang R , et al
      . Water and sanitation issues for persons with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: a literature review and discussion of implications for global health and international development. J Water Health 2011;9:617–27.doi:10.2166/wh.2011.198 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22048421
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    13. 13.↵
      2. Wilbur J ,
      3. Gosling L
      . Breaking the barriers – disability, ageing and HIV in inclusive WASH programming. In: Cumming O , Slaymaker T , eds. Equality in water and sanitation services. Routledge, 2018.
    14. 14.↵
      2. Shiras T ,
      3. Cumming O ,
      4. Brown J , et al
      . Shared latrines in Maputo, Mozambique: exploring emotional well-being and psychosocial stress. BMC Int Health Hum Rights 2018;18:1–12.doi:10.1186/s12914-018-0169-z
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    15. 15.↵
      2. Augsburg B ,
      3. Rodríguez-Lesmes P
      . Sanitation dynamics: Toilet acquisition and its economic and social implications in rural and urban contexts. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev 2020;10:628–41.doi:10.2166/washdev.2020.098
      OpenUrl
    16. 16.↵
      2. Jenkins MW ,
      3. Curtis V
      . Achieving the 'good life': why some people want latrines in rural Benin. Soc Sci Med 2005;61:2446–59.doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.04.036 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15949883
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    17. 17.↵
      2. Santos AC ,
      3. Roberts JA ,
      4. Barreto ML , et al
      . Demand for sanitation in Salvador, Brazil: a hybrid choice approach. Soc Sci Med 2011;72:1325–32.doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.018 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21439700
      OpenUrlPubMed
    18. 18.↵
      2. Dickinson KL ,
      3. Patil SR ,
      4. Pattanayak SK , et al
      . Nature’s Call: Impacts of Sanitation Choices in Orissa, India. Econ Dev Cult Change 2015;64:1–29.doi:10.1086/682958
      OpenUrl
    19. 19.↵
      2. Guiteras R ,
      3. Levinsohn J ,
      4. Mobarak AM
      . Sanitation subsidies. encouraging sanitation investment in the developing world: a cluster-randomized trial. Science 2015;348:903–6.doi:10.1126/science.aaa0491 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25883316
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    20. 20.↵
      2. Cumming O ,
      3. Arnold BF ,
      4. Ban R , et al
      . The implications of three major new trials for the effect of water, sanitation and hygiene on childhood diarrhea and stunting: a consensus statement. BMC Med 2019;17:173.doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1410-x pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31462230
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. 21.↵
      2. Gruebner O ,
      3. Khan MMH ,
      4. Lautenbach S , et al
      . Mental health in the slums of Dhaka - a geoepidemiological study. BMC Public Health 2012;12:177.doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-177 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22404959
      OpenUrlPubMed
    22. 22.↵
      2. Caruso BA ,
      3. Cooper HLF ,
      4. Haardörfer R , et al
      . The association between women’s sanitation experiences and mental health: A cross-sectional study in Rural, Odisha India. SSM Popul Health 2018;5:257–66.doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2018.06.005
      OpenUrl
    23. 23.↵
      2. Leder K ,
      3. Openshaw JJ ,
      4. Allotey P , et al
      . Study design, rationale and methods of the Revitalising informal settlements and their environments (rise) study: a cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate environmental and human health impacts of a water-sensitive intervention in informal settlements in Indonesia and Fiji. BMJ Open 2021;11:e042850.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042850 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33419917
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    24. 24.↵
      2. Freeman MC ,
      3. Delea MG ,
      4. Snyder JS , et al
      . The impact of a demand-side sanitation and hygiene promotion intervention on sustained behavior change and health in Amhara, Ethiopia: a cluster-randomized trial. PLOS Glob Public Health 2022;2:e0000056.doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0000056
    25. 25.↵
      1. INE
      . IV Recenseamento Geral da População e Habitação 2017: Resultados Definitivos 2019.
    26. 26.↵
      2. Hawkins P ,
      3. Muximpua O
      . Developing business models for fecal sludge management in Maputo. World Bank, 2015.
    27. 27.↵
      2. Knee J ,
      3. Sumner T ,
      4. Adriano Z
      . Effects of an urban sanitation intervention on childhood enteric infection and diarrhoea in Mozambique. Elife 2021;10:e62278.doi:10.7554/eLife.62278
    28. 28.↵
      2. Ross I ,
      3. Greco G ,
      4. Opondo C , et al
      . Measuring and valuing broader impacts in public health: development of a sanitation-related quality of life instrument in Maputo, Mozambique. Health Econ 2022;31:466–80.doi:10.1002/hec.4462 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34888994
      OpenUrlPubMed
    29. 29.↵
      2. Topp CW ,
      3. Østergaard SD ,
      4. Søndergaard S , et al
      . The WHO-5 well-being index: a systematic review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom 2015;84:167–76.doi:10.1159/000376585 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25831962
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    30. 30.↵
      2. Tilley E ,
      3. Bieri S ,
      4. Kohler P
      . Sanitation in developing countries: a review through a gender lens. J Water, Sanit Hyg Dev 2013;3:298–314.doi:10.2166/washdev.2013.090
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    31. 31.↵
      2. O'Reilly K
      . From toilet insecurity to toilet security: creating safe sanitation for women and girls. WIREs Water 2016;3:19–24.doi:10.1002/wat2.1122
      OpenUrl
    32. 32.↵
      2. Castel-Branco R ,
      3. Andrés RV
      . Towards universal social security for the elderly in Mozambique. International Labour Organisation, 2019.
    33. 33.↵
      2. Vyas S ,
      3. Kumaranayake L
      . Constructing socio-economic status indices: how to use principal components analysis. Health Policy Plan . 2021;17.doi:10.1093/heapol/czl029
    34. 35.↵
      2. Raab GM ,
      3. Day S ,
      4. Sales J
      . How to select covariates to include in the analysis of a clinical trial. Control Clin Trials 2000;21:330–42.doi:10.1016/S0197-2456(00)00061-1 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10913808
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    35. 36.↵
      2. Kahan BC ,
      3. Morris TP
      . Adjusting for multiple prognostic factors in the analysis of randomised trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13:1–11.doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-99
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    36. 37.↵
      2. Elm Evon ,
      3. Altman DG ,
      4. Egger M , et al
      . Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 2007;335:806–8.doi:10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    37. 38.↵
      2. Morton B ,
      3. Vercueil A ,
      4. Masekela R , et al
      . Consensus statement on measures to promote equitable authorship in the publication of research from international partnerships. Anaesthesia 2022;77:264–76.doi:10.1111/anae.15597 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34647323
      OpenUrlPubMed
    38. 39.↵
      2. Ross I
      . Data for: ‘Sanitation-related Quality of Life (SanQoL) in Maputo, Mozambique’ (LSHTM Data Compass). LSHTM Data Compass 2021.doi:10.17037/DATA.00002442
    39. 40.↵
      2. Tidwell JB ,
      3. Terris-Prestholt F ,
      4. Quaife M , et al
      . Understanding demand for higher quality sanitation in peri-urban Lusaka, Zambia through stated and revealed preference analysis. Soc Sci Med 2019;232:139–47.doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.04.046 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31085398
      OpenUrlPubMed
    40. 41.↵
      2. Hutton G ,
      3. Chase C
      . The knowledge base for achieving the sustainable development goal targets on water supply, sanitation and hygiene. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2016;13. doi:doi:10.3390/ijerph13060536. [Epub ahead of print: 27 May 2016].pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27240389
      OpenUrlPubMed
    41. 42.↵
      2. Longworth L ,
      3. Yang Y ,
      4. Young T , et al
      . Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol Assess 2014;18:1–224.doi:10.3310/hta18090 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24524660
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    42. 42.↵
      2. Ross I
      . Measuring and valuing quality of life in the economic evaluation of sanitation interventions [PhD thesis], 2021.
    43. 44.↵
      2. Peletz R ,
      3. Kisiangani J ,
      4. Ronoh P , et al
      . Assessing the demand for plastic latrine slabs in rural Kenya. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2019;101:555–65.doi:10.4269/ajtmh.18-0888 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31392946
      OpenUrlPubMed
    44. 45.↵
      2. Tidwell JB
      . Users are willing to pay for sanitation, but not as much as they say: empirical results and methodological comparisons of willingness to pay for peri-urban sanitation in Lusaka, Zambia using contingent valuation, discrete choice experiments, and hedonic pricing. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev 2020;10:756–67.doi:10.2166/washdev.2020.072
      OpenUrl

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @IanRossUK

    • Contributors IR conceptualised the study and developed the methods as part of a PhD, with support from OC/GG/CO. ZA and IR refined the methods through discussion, fieldworker training, cognitive interviews and piloting. ZA led the fieldwork team and curated the data. IR analysed the data and wrote the original draft. All authors inputted into subsequent drafts. OC/RN/JB secured the funding. IR is the guarantor.

    • 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 (OPP1137224).

    • Disclaimer The funders had no role in the identification, design, conduct, or reporting of the analysis.

    • Map disclaimer The inclusion of any map (including the depiction of any boundaries therein), or of any geographic or locational reference, does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of BMJ concerning the legal status of any country, territory, jurisdiction or area or of its authorities. Any such expression remains solely that of the relevant source and is not endorsed by BMJ. Maps are provided without any warranty of any kind, either express or implied.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

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

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.