Authors : Yoweri Idiba; Alex Barakagira; Norman David Nsereko

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 2 - February

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/336wyau3

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/3xuy3793

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14965843

Abstract : Sanitation and nutrition are crucial for child survival and development (Sclar et al., 2022). While the threats of poor sanitation to child health are documented, the sociocultural influences on sanitation practices are less understood. These influences shape attitudes towards waste management and can significantly affect child health outcomes (Obi et al., 2017). This study investigates key sociocultural factors impacting sanitation practices and their effects on child health in Gulu district, Uganda. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected using a cross-sectional, convergent, mixed-methods design. A structured questionnaire was given to 317 caregivers of children under five, supplemented by focus group discussions and interviews with community members and health practitioners. Data were analyzed using SPSS, Jamovi, and QDA Miner Lite software. Results indicated that 38.5% of children were malnourished (as measured by MUAC), 28.7% were stunted, 16.4% were underweight, and 55.8% had an unbalanced diet. Diarrhea was reported in 62.7% of households, with 20.5% lacking sanitation facilities and 62.2% disposing of diapers improperly. Cultural beliefs and practices significantly impacted sanitation, exacerbating diarrhea and malnutrition. In conclusion, sociocultural factors are vital in shaping sanitation practices and child health outcomes in Gulu District. Addressing these factors through culturally sensitive interventions is essential. Recommendations include integrating cultural beliefs into sanitation initiatives, promoting community-led sanitation efforts, empowering women in decision-making, and enhancing sanitation education among caregivers.

Keywords : Sociocultural, Norms, Sanitation Practices, Child Health, Diarrhea, Malnutrition, Gulu District, Uganda.

References :

1. Blum, L. S., et al. (2022). Social and economic factors influence household food distribution and children's nutritional intake: Food Policy, 107, 102247. doi: [DOI_1]
2. Bonnay, G. (2016). Abductive reasoning: A philosophical and computational perspective. Springer. doi: [DOI_2]
3. Brouwer, R., Bartram, J., & Fewtrell, L. (2019). Global assessment of sanitation and drinking water: 2017 update and 2030 targets. Environ Sci Technol, 53(9), 4590-4602. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b05589
4. Brown, J. D., Nyenze, B. K., & Adungu, T. (2019). Diaper disposal practices and associated factors among caregivers in a rural Ugandan setting. Journal of Health, Population, and Nutrition, 38(4), 149-158. doi: 10.1186/s41043-019-0201-8
5. Brown, T. A. (2022). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. doi: [DOI_3]
6. Budhathoki, K. P., Dhimal, M., Irvine, K., & Devkota, B. (2019). Understanding the determinants of household sanitation decision-making: A case study from rural Nepal. Journal of Water and Sanitation Hygiene for Development, 9(1), 15–28. doi: 10.2166/washdev.2018.066
7. Busienei, P. J., Ogendi, G. M., & Mokua, M. A. (2019). Open Defecation Practices in Lodwar, Kenya: A Mixed-Methods Research. Environmental Health Insights, 13. doi: [DOI_4]
8. Cagnet, D. L. (2022). Digital Commons @ ACU Facilitators to Becoming and Remaining Open Defecation Free in Uganda: Implications for Community-Led Total Sanitation Programming. doi: [DOI_5]
9. Cairncross, S., & Hunt, C. (2017). This research on sanitation and health, from pit latrines to sustainable sanitation and hygiene for all, is of utmost importance. London: Routledge. doi: [DOI_6]
10. Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). This work on reliability and validity assessment is a testament to the credibility of our sources. Sage. doi: [DOI_7]
11. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (2023). The World Factbook - Uganda. This information is highly relevant and can significantly contribute to your understanding. Retrieved from: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/uganda
12. Chakrabarti, S., Das, S., & Akter, S. (2016). Examining the role of contextual factors in promoting behavior change for disaster risk reduction: A study of flood-prone communities in Bangladesh. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 17, 190-201. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.03.002
13. Clarke, N. E. (2021). Improving Uptake and Sustainability of Sanitation Interventions in Timor-Leste: A Case Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 3. doi: [DOI_8]
14. Cohen, B. P. (2018). The ethics of Jewish bioethics: The life and work of Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits. Oxford University Press. doi: [DOI_9]
15. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications. doi: [DOI_10]
16. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications. doi: [DOI_11]
17. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. doi: [DOI_12]
18. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications. doi: [DOI_13]
19. Crocker, J. (2017). Sustainability of community-led total sanitation outcomes: Evidence from Ethiopia and Ghana. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 220(3), 551–557. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2016.10.007
20. Cronbach, L. J. (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. Jossey-Bass. doi: [DOI_14]
21. Czerniewska, A., Muangi, W. C., Aunger, R., Massa, K., & Curtis, V. (2019). Timely, relevant, and actionable learning and research to achieve safely managed sanitation and hygiene for all. PLoS ONE, 14(8), e0220566. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220666
22. Davis, L. L. (2022). Instrument development: The content validity index. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 78(1), 233–241. doi: 10.1111/jan.14948
23. Dellinger, A. B., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Toward a unified validation framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 309–332. doi: 10.1177/1558689807305396
24. DeMasi, A. (2023, September 28). Three decades of infant motor development: Cohort effects in motor skill onsets. doi: [DOI_15]
25. Demissie, A. M. (2022, February 27). Communications Approach and Perceptual Response in Health Information. doi: [DOI_16]
26. Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on the First Philosophy. doi: [DOI_17]
27. Dickin, S., Bayoumi, M., Giné, R., Andersson, K., & Jiménez, A. (2020, May 25). Sustainable sanitation and gaps in global climate policy and financing. doi: [DOI_18]
28. Dillon, J. (2017). Hippocrates and the philosophy of medicine. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 72(2), 147–163. doi: 10.1093/James/jrw004
29. Dillon, M. (2017). Dirt: The social history of filth and cleanliness in Britain. Oxford University Press. doi: [DOI_19]
30. Donnelly, J. (2013). Universal human rights in theory and practice. Cornell University Press. doi: [DOI_20]
31. Douglas, M. (2002). Purity and danger: An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. Routledge. doi: [DOI_21]
32. Dukes, S. (1984). Phenomenological methodology in the human sciences. Journal of Religion and Health, 23, 197–203. doi: 10.1007/BF00990785