Skip to main content

Table 2 Estimated total effects of the MapSan intervention on intermediary outcomes from grouped path analyses

From: Using path analysis to test theory of change: a quantitative process evaluation of the MapSan trial

Compounds with 20 members or fewer

Unstandardised coefficient

95% CI

p-value

➔ Accessibility (direct)

-0.053

(-0.080, -0.026)

<0.001

➔ Collective cleaning (indirect)

0.022

(0.007, 0.036)

0.003

➔ Latrine cleanliness

0.40

(0.32, 0.47)

<0.001

  Direct

0.39

(0.32, 0.47)

<0.001

  Indirect: via collective cleaning

0.004

(0.001, 0.007)

0.020

➔ Privacy (direct)

0.69

(0.62, 0.75)

<0.001

➔ Latrine maintenance (direct)

0.45

(0.38, 0.52)

<0.001

➔ Soap/water at HWF (indirect)

0.016

(-0.034, 0.066)

0.519

➔ HWWS (indirect)

0.012

(-0.025, 0.049)

0.520

Compounds with more than 20 members

Unstandardised coefficient

95% CI

p-value

➔ Collective cleaning

0.077

(0.009, 0.15)

0.027

  Indirect: via cleaning rota

0.044

(0.001, 0.087)

0.046

  Indirect: via individual cleaning

0.033

(-0.013, 0.079)

0.157

➔ Latrine cleanliness

0.41

(0.20, 0.62)

<0.001

  Direct

0.40

(0.18, 0.61)

<0.001

  Indirect: via collective cleaning

0.016

(-0.003, 0.035)

0.105

➔ Repairs (indirect)

0.044

(-0.007, 0.095)

0.090

➔ Privacy

0.67

(0.50, 0.84)

<0.001

  Direct

0.66

(0.48, 0.84)

<0.001

  Indirect: via repairs

0.009

(-0.004, 0.022)

0.161

➔ Latrine maintenance (direct)

0.72

(0.55, 0.88)

<0.001

➔ HWWS (indirect)

-0.16

(-0.26, -0.048)

0.004

  1. Total effects subdivided into direct and/or indirect effects. Indirect effects are calculated as the product of all coefficients in a pathway. For example, the indirect effect on latrine cleanliness in small compounds is calculated 0.87 * 0.13 * 0.19 * 0.19 = 0.004
  2. Abbreviations: CI confidence interval, HWF handwashing facility, HWWS handwashing with soap