Water and sanitation accessibility and the health of rural Ugandans

The lack of access to sufficient water and sanitation facilities is one of the largest hindrances towards the sustainable development of the poorest 2.2 billion people in the world. Rural Uganda is one of the areas where such inaccessibility is seriously hampering their efforts at development. Many rural Ugandans must travel several kilometers to fetch adequate water and many still do not have adequate sanitation facilities. Such poor access to clean water forces Ugandans to spend an inordinate amount of time and energy collecting water - time and energy that could be used for more useful endeavors. Furthermore, the difficulty in getting water means that people use less water than they need to for optimal health and well-being. Access to other sanitation facilities can also have a large impact, particularly on the health of young children and the elderly whose immune systems are less than optimal. Hand-washing, presence of a sanitary latrine, general household cleanliness, maintenance of the safe water chain and the households’ knowledge about and adherence to sound sanitation practices may be as important as access to clean water sources. This report investigates these problems using the results from two different studies. It first looks into how access to water affects peoples’ use of it. In particular it investigates how much water households use as a function of perceived effort to fetch it. Operationally, this was accomplished by surveying nearly 1,500 residents in three different districts around Uganda about their water usage and the time and distance they must travel to fetch it. The study found that there is no statistically significant correlation between a family’s water usage and the perceived effort they must put forth to have to fetch it. On average, people use around 15 liters per person per day. Rural Ugandan residents apparently require a certain amount of water and will travel as far or as long as necessary to collect it. Secondly, a study entitled “What Works Best in Diarrheal Disease Prevention?” was carried out to study the effectiveness of five different water and sanitation facilities in reducing diarrheal disease incidences amongst children under five. It did this by surveying five different communities before and after the implementation of improvements to find changes in diarrheal disease incidences amongst children under five years of age. It found that household water treatment devices provide the best means of preventing diarrheal diseases. This is likely because water often becomes contaminated before it is consumed even if it was collected from a protected source.

Adapting health-risk communication to the specific cultural contexts of diverse populations : an assessment of malaria-treatment programs in Liberia

Drawing on theories of technical communication, rhetoric, literacy, language and culture, and medical anthropology, this dissertation explores how local culture and traditions can be incorporated into health-risk-communication-program design and implementation, including the design and dissemination of health-risk messages. In a modern world with increasing global economic partnerships, mounting health and environmental risks, and cross-cultural collaborations, those who interact with people of different cultures have “a moral obligation to take those cultures seriously, including their social organization and values” (Hahn and Inhorn 10). Paradoxically, at the same time as we must carefully adapt health, safety, and environmental-risk messages to diverse cultures and populations, we must also recognize the increasing extent to which we are all becoming part of one, vast, interrelated global village. This, too, has a significant impact on the ways in which healthcare plans should be designed, communicated, and implemented. Because communicating across diverse cultures requires a system for “bridging the gap between individual differences and negotiating individual realities” (Kim and Gudykunst 50), both administrators and beneficiaries of malaria-treatment-and-control programs (MTCPs) in Liberia were targeted to participate in this study. A total of 105 people participated in this study: 21 MTCP administrators (including designers and implementers) completed survey questionnaires on program design, implementation, and outcomes; and 84 MTCP beneficiaries (e.g., traditional leaders and young adults) were interviewed about their knowledge of malaria and methods for communicating health risks in their tribe or culture. All participants showed a tremendous sense of courage, commitment, resilience, and pragmatism, especially in light of the fact that many of them live and work under dire socioeconomic conditions (e.g., no electricity and poor communication networks). Although many MTCP beneficiaries interviewed for this study had bed nets in their homes, a majority (46.34 percent) used a combination of traditional herbal medicine and Western medicine to treat malaria. MTCP administrators who participated in this study rated the impacts of their programs on reducing malaria in Liberia as moderately successful (61.90 percent) or greatly successful (38.10 percent), and they offered a variety of insights on what they might do differently in the future to incorporate local culture and traditions into program design and implementation. Participating MTCP administrators and beneficiaries differed in their understanding of what “cultural incorporation” meant, but they agreed that using local indigenous languages to communicate health-risk messages was essential for effective health-risk communication. They also suggested that understanding the literacy practices and linguistic cultures of the local people is essential to communicating health risks across diverse cultures and populations.