Bulletin of the World Health Organization

Shame or subsidy revisited: social mobilization for sanitation in Orissa, India

Subhrendu K Pattanayak, Jui-Chen Yang, Katherine L Dickinson, Christine Poulos, Sumeet R Patil, Ranjan K Mallick, Jonathan L Blitstein & Purujit Praharaj

Volume 87, Number 8, August 2009, 580-587

Table 3. DID estimatesa of the effect of an IEC sanitation campaign on individual household latrine ownership in Bhadrak, Orissa, India, 2005–2006

Model 1b Model 2c
A: Full sample
No. of households/clusters 1050/20 2100/20
IEC effect (%) 19.0 28.7
95% CId 4.7–33.3 14.6–42.9
P-value 0.006 0.000
B: BPL only
No. of households/clusters 632/20 1264/20
IEC effect 23.7 34.2
95% CId 6.7–40.7 18.0–50.4
P-value 0.003 0.000
C: Non-BPL only
No. of households/clusters 418/20 836/20
IEC effect 12.0 20.7
95% CId 1.9–25.8 6.2–35.2
P-value 0.084 0.000

BPL, below the poverty line; CI, confidence interval; DID, difference-in-difference; IEC, information, education and communication.
a Standard errors were corrected for clustering at the village level.
b Estimate based on a simple comparison of means in 2006.
c DID using observed latrine ownership in 2005 and 2006. As a check for robustness, we estimated a semi-parametric DID model
22 that essentially uses inverse probability weights as a function of baseline latrine coverage, and found virtually identical results. This confirms that the combination of randomized assignment, covariate balance and DID estimation eliminates any potential bias.
d The intracluster correlation coefficient is set at 0.125.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]