Shared sanitation facilities are not considered a type of basic sanitation by the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP), though they may be the only alternative to open defecation in urban informal settlements. Additionally, JMP indicators for sanitation do not cover aspects related to the quality of shared sanitation, such as those outlined in the Human Right to Water and Sanitation (HRTWS) framework. Data on the prevalence of shared sanitation within informal settlement areas is limited, and there is a need to understand user preferences, experiences, and barriers to the use of shared sanitation to inform effective policy and practice. This systematic review aims to summarize the prevalence and number of households sharing sanitation in informal settlements globally, as well as user experiences and barriers to successful implementation of shared sanitation. We included studies available in English and published after January 1, 2000. We retrieved 4741 articles from seven databases and included a total of 167 relevant publications. Among included studies, 54 reported the prevalence of shared sanitation in informal settlements, and 138 studies reported on user perceptions and experiences related to shared sanitation quality. A meta-analysis of studies reporting the prevalence of shared sanitation in informal settlements globally revealed an estimated overall prevalence of 67% [95% CI: 61%-73%]. Commonly reported user preferences included cleanliness to promote continued use of shared facilities, privacy with a lockable door, facilities for menstrual hygiene management, safety and protection against violence, 24/7 access, proper lighting, and shared responsibility for facility management - which align with the HRTWS framework and represent barriers to shared sanitation use. Based on the findings of this review, we recommend including the number of households or people sharing a sanitation facility in monitoring of shared sanitation quality, locating sanitation facilities within compounds, where applicable, and promoting safety, dignity, and privacy of all users in the development of shared sanitation quality indicators.

BACKGROUND: Shared sanitation facilities are used by over 500 million people around the world. Most research evidence indicates that shared sanitation conveys higher risk than household sanitation for many adverse health outcomes. However, studies often fail to account for variation between different types of shared facilities. As informal housing development outpaces sanitation infrastructure, it is imperative to understand which components of shared facilities may mitigate the health risks of shared sanitation use.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study determines whether sanitation improvement or compound hygiene were associated with stunting or diarrhoeal prevalence in children under five living in Maputo, Mozambique who rely on shared sanitation facilities. The study uses logistic and linear multivariable regression analysis to search for associations and control for potential confounding factors.
RESULTS: 346 children (43.9%) in the study population were stunted. Each unit increase in sanitation score was associated with an approximate decrease of 22% in the odds of stunting (OR: 0.78, CI: 0.66, 0.92), and an increase in height of 0.23 height-for-age z-scores (CI: 0.10, 0.36). There was no evidence that the compound hygiene score was associated with height as measured by stunting (OR: 1.05, CI: 0.87, 1.26) or z-score (-0.06, CI: -0.21, 0.09). Neither sanitation nor compound hygiene score were associated with diarrhoea in the population.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of an improved shared latrine is associated with decreased odds of stunting. There is no evidence of an association between latrine improvement and diarrhoea. Further investigation is necessary to isolate attributes of shared sanitation facilities that may reduce health risks.

Shared sanitation facilities have been hailed as an innovative approach to solve the challenge with sanitation access. However, these facilities may act as hotspots for disease transmission due to unhygienic conditions. In this study we used quantitative (based on Escherichia coli contamination) techniques to assess the health risks associated with the use of community ablution blocks (CABs). The most contaminated surfaces were the cistern handle (5.7 Log10 cfu/cm2) and internal pull latch (5.8 Log10 cfu/cm2). Based on the E. coli contamination, at least two people out of 100 CAB users might be potentially infected when they touch \"hot\" surfaces. These risks were modelled assuming transfer of potentially pathogenic E. coli from these surfaces to the mouth. The incorporation of risk-reduction measures, such as wiping of these surfaces or washing of hands, could potentially result in significant reduction of infection risks. The most significant risk-reduction intervention was determined to be wiping of the contact surfaces, especially twice prior to contact. A combination of risk-reduction interventions could further reduce the risks. This study shows that contamination of contact surfaces within shared CABs could lead to increased risks of infections, requiring measures aimed at reducing the associated risks. The risk assessment framework used in this study could therefore be applied in similar settings to estimate associated health risks with the use of such facilities.

Fecal source tracking (FST) may be useful to assess pathways of fecal contamination in domestic environments and to estimate the impacts of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions in low-income settings. We measured two nonspecific and two human-associated fecal indicators in water, soil, and surfaces before and after a shared latrine intervention from low-income households in Maputo, Mozambique, participating in the Maputo Sanitation (MapSan) trial. Up to a quarter of households were impacted by human fecal contamination, but trends were unaffected by improvements to shared sanitation facilities. The intervention reduced Escherichia coli gene concentrations in soil but did not impact culturable E. coli or the prevalence of human FST markers in a difference-in-differences analysis. Using a novel Bayesian hierarchical modeling approach to account for human marker diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, we revealed a high amount of uncertainty associated with human FST measurements and intervention effect estimates. The field of microbial source tracking would benefit from adding measures of diagnostic accuracy to better interpret findings, particularly when FST analyses convey insufficient information for robust inference. With improved measures, FST could help identify dominant pathways of human and animal fecal contamination in communities and guide the implementation of effective interventions to safeguard health.

Contamination of contact surfaces with SARS-CoV-2 has been reported as a potential route for the transmission of COVID-19. This could be a major issue in developing countries where access to basic sanitation is poor, leading to the sharing of toilet facilities. In this study, we report SARS-CoV-2 contamination of key contact surfaces in shared toilets and the probabilistic risks of COVID-19 infections based on detection and quantification of the nucleic acid on the surfaces. We observed that 54-69% of the contact surfaces were contaminated, with SARS-CoV-2 loads ranging from 28.1 to 132.7 gene copies per cm2. Toilet seats had the highest contamination, which could be attributed to shedding of the virus in feces and urine. We observed a significant reduction in viral loads on the contaminated surfaces after cleaning, showing the potential of effective cleaning on the reduction of contamination. The pattern of contamination indicates that the most contaminated surfaces are those that are either commonly touched by users of the shared toilets or easily contaminated with feces and urine. These surfaces were the toilet seats, cistern handles and tap handles. The likelihood (probability) of infection with COVID-19 on these surfaces was highest on the toilet seat (1.76 × 10-4(1.58 × 10-6)) for one time use of the toilet. These findings highlight the potential risks for COVID-19 infections in the event that intact infectious viral particles are deposited on these contact surfaces. Therefore, this study shows that shared toilet facilities in densely populated areas could lead to an increase in risks of COVID-19 infections. This calls for the implementation of risk reduction measures, such as regular washing of hands with soap, strict adherence to wearing face masks, and effective and regular cleaning of shared facilities.

BACKGROUND: Lack of household sanitation, specifically toilet facilities, can adversely affect the safety of women and girls by requiring them to leave their households to defecate alone and at night, leaving them more vulnerable to non-marital sexual violence. This study analyzes the association between household sanitation access and past year victimization from non-marital sexual violence (NMSV) in India.
METHODS: We analyzed 74,698 women age 15-49 from whom information on NMSV was collected in India\'s National Family Health Survey 2015-16 (NFHS-4). We used multivariable logistic regression to test the relationship between women\'s household sanitation access and recent NMSV experience, controlling for socioeconomics (SES;e.g., age, marital status, caste, wealth, employment), for the total sample and stratified by rural/urban, given lower access to sanitation and lower NMSV in rural contexts.
RESULTS: We found that 46.2% of households in our sample lacked their own private sanitation facilities (58.0% rural; 24.5% urban) and were forced to openly defecate (37.3%) or walk to a shared sanitation facility (8.9%), and 0.45% of women report NMSV in the last 12 months (0.33% rural; 0.68% urban). Our multivariable model indicated no significant association between having private household sanitation facilities and NMSV for the total sample, but stratified analyses indicate a significant association for rural but not urban women. In rural India, those who lack private household sanitation, compared to those with a household toilet, have significantly greater odds of NMSV (AOR = 2.45; p < 0.05). These findings persist after accounting for demographics including age and marital status, socio-economic factors related to marginalization (e.g., caste, wealth), women\'s employment, and the overall climate of the state.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study support prior research suggesting that poor access to sanitation is associated with women\'s risk for NMSV in rural India. This may be via increased exposure, and/or as a marker for greater vulnerability to NMSV beyond what is explained by other SES indicators. Solutions can include increased access to private household sanitation and more targeted NMSV prevention in rural India.

OBJECTIVE: The study assessed the behavioural contexts of household shared sanitation (SS), the factors that could enhance its cleanliness and sustainable maintenance in the study area.
METHODS: The study design was cross-sectional in nature.
METHODS: A pretested, interviewer-administered questionnaire with 113 questions provided information on knowledge, attitude and SS maintenance practices from 312 respondents selected through a four-stage sampling technique. Data were analysed by descriptive, chi-square and logistic regression statistics with attitude and toilet cleanliness as the dependent variables, while the sociodemographic characteristics, knowledge and practice, including the toilet cleanliness index, were the explanatory variables at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: The mean age of respondents was 46.1 ± 16.4 years. The majority were women (62.7%), tenants (64.7%) and had a secondary education (61.3%). In addition, 27.9% and 2.7% of respondents had shops and gender-segregated SS, respectively. Their knowledge and attitudes were good (66.3%) and positive (72.1%), while the majority (60.3%) of the SS was dirty. Almost two-thirds (62.8%) and 37.2% of respondents, respectively, had one and two or more compartments of unimproved pit toilets (31.6%) and water closets (28.6%), while 1.4% practiced open defaecation, despite having SS. More than two-fifths of SS were cleaned daily (45.4%) by women (52%), using water and soap (33.4%). Most households (93.4%) complied with the SS cleaning routines, with non-compliance attributed to lack of interest (29.5%), apathy when others defaulted (27.9%), lack of time (26.2%) and inadequate water (14.8%). There was a significant association between attitudes and education (P = 0.025), wealth (P = 0.011) and toilet-cleaning frequency (P = 0.015). The positive behaviour determinants of SS are factual knowledge (P = 0.039), efforts required to clean (P = 0.019), the ability to remember (P = 0.011) and cleaning commitment (P = 0.040), while freedom of expression among households using SS was a positive predictor of avoiding conflict, among the social dilemma factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Good knowledge and positive attitudes were reported among users of SS, although with mixed practice and behaviour patterns. Factual knowledge, cleaning commitments and freedom of expressions predict SS cleanliness, which should be reinforced using periodic messages and structured health promotion strategies.

Shared sanitation-sanitation facilities shared by multiple households-is increasingly common in rapidly growing urban areas in low-income countries. However, shared sanitation facilities are often poorly maintained, dissuading regular use and potentially increasing disease risk. In a series of focus group discussions and in-depth interviews, we explored the determinants of shared sanitation management within the context of a larger-scale health impact evaluation of an improved, shared sanitation facility in Maputo, Mozambique. We identified a range of formal management practices users developed to maintain shared sanitation facilities, and found that management strategies were associated with perceived latrine quality. However-even within an intervention context-many users reported that there was no formal system for management of sanitation facilities at the compound level. Social capital played a critical role in the success of both formal and informal management strategies, and low social capital was associated with collective action failure. Shared sanitation facilities should consider ways to support social capital within target communities and identify simple, replicable behavior change models that are not dependent on complex social processes.

Unlike most quantitative studies that investigate decision-making on investing in sanitation, this study adopted a qualitative approach to investigate decision-making on shared sanitation in the informal settlements of Kisumu city, in Kenya. Using a grounded theory approach, landlords and tenants were interviewed to identify sanitation decisions, individuals involved in decision-making and factors influencing decision-making. The results indicate that the main sanitation decisions are on investment, emptying, repair and cleaning. Landlords make investment, emptying and repair decisions, while tenants make cleaning decisions. Absentee landlords are less involved in most decision-making compared to live-in landlords, who rarely consult tenants in decision-making. Tenants make decisions after consultations with a third party and often collectively with other tenants. Sanitation interventions in informal settlements should thus, target landlords and tenants, with investment efforts being directed at landlords and maintenance efforts at tenants.

Just over 600 million people used shared sanitation in 2015, but this form of sanitation is not considered \'improved sanitation\' or, in the current terminology, \'basic sanitation\' by WHO/UNICEF, principally because they are typically unhygienic. Recent research has shown that neighbour-shared toilets perform much better than large communal toilets. The successful development of community-designed, built and managed sanitation-and-water blocks in very poor urban areas in India should be adapted and adopted throughout urban slums in developing countries, with a caretaker employed to keep the facilities clean. Such shared sanitation should be classified as \'basic\', sometimes as \'safely-managed\', sanitation, so contributing to the achievement of the sanitation target of the Sustainable Development Goals.