Skip to Main Content

Table 2 presents the results of multivariate logistic regressions for the use of alternatives to private tubewells in Area 1 (columns 1–7) and Area 2 (column 8). Only statistically significant associations are reported. For Area 1, similar regressions in two socioeconomic subsets, above and below the median socioeconomic index, are in Table S3 (SI).

Table 2

Multivariate logistic regression results for the regular use of alternatives to private tubewells in Area 1 (columns 1 through 7) and Area 2 (column 8)

Variable12345678
Any alt. vs. noneKJ vs. noneFilter vs. noneGTW vs. noneKJ vs. FilterKJ vs. GTWFilter vs. GTWPiped vs. none
Socioeconomic status 0.7*** 0.7*** 1.2*** 0.1 –0.3° 0.8* 1.2** 1.0* 
Household size –0.1 0.0 0.0 –0.6* 0.1 1.1* 0.9* 0.2 
Children < 5 0.1 0.2 0.0 –0.1 0.3 0.5 0.1 –0.4 
Women's group participation –0.1 0.1 –0.3° –0.3 0.4* 0.6° 0.0 –0.2 
External advice 0.0 0.2 –0.1 0.0 0.4° –0.1 –0.2 0.4 
Doctor's advice 0.2° 0.4** 0.1 0.4° 0.4* –0.2 –0.3 0.2 
Use of KJ by peers 0.2 0.4* 0.0 0.1 0.5* 0.1 0.2 NA 
Arsenic knowledge 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 –0.4* 0.2 0.1 –0.6 
Perceived likelihood of GI illness 0.6*** 0.6*** 0.5** 0.8*** 0.3 –0.5 –0.7° 0.8° 
Dissatisfaction with iron 0.3* 0.2 0.5* 0.0 –0.5 0.6 0.7 –0.5 
Perceived agency –0.2° –0.2 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1 0.4 –0.2 –0.8* 
Exposure to KJ 0.1 0.2 –0.1 –0.2 0.3 0.3 –0.1 NA 
Perceived aesthetics of KJ 0.1 0.2 –0.1 –0.2 0.4* 0.5 0.1 NA 
Perceived safety of KJ 0.1 0.3 0.2 –0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 NA 
Perceived aesthetics of piped NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.0** 
Perceived safety of piped NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.1 
Perceived convenience of piped NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.8* 
Intercept –0.3** –1.2*** –1.4*** –2.4*** 0.4° 1.8*** 1.2** 2.1*** 
Sample size
(broken down by water source) 
409
(178, 231) 
320
(89, 231) 
309
(78, 231) 
259
(28, 231) 
155
(89, 66) 
113
(89, 24) 
103
(78, 25) 
89
(70, 19) 
Goodness-of-fit (p-value)a 0.34 0.56 0.63 0.87 0.91 0.73 0.73 0.23 
Variable12345678
Any alt. vs. noneKJ vs. noneFilter vs. noneGTW vs. noneKJ vs. FilterKJ vs. GTWFilter vs. GTWPiped vs. none
Socioeconomic status 0.7*** 0.7*** 1.2*** 0.1 –0.3° 0.8* 1.2** 1.0* 
Household size –0.1 0.0 0.0 –0.6* 0.1 1.1* 0.9* 0.2 
Children < 5 0.1 0.2 0.0 –0.1 0.3 0.5 0.1 –0.4 
Women's group participation –0.1 0.1 –0.3° –0.3 0.4* 0.6° 0.0 –0.2 
External advice 0.0 0.2 –0.1 0.0 0.4° –0.1 –0.2 0.4 
Doctor's advice 0.2° 0.4** 0.1 0.4° 0.4* –0.2 –0.3 0.2 
Use of KJ by peers 0.2 0.4* 0.0 0.1 0.5* 0.1 0.2 NA 
Arsenic knowledge 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 –0.4* 0.2 0.1 –0.6 
Perceived likelihood of GI illness 0.6*** 0.6*** 0.5** 0.8*** 0.3 –0.5 –0.7° 0.8° 
Dissatisfaction with iron 0.3* 0.2 0.5* 0.0 –0.5 0.6 0.7 –0.5 
Perceived agency –0.2° –0.2 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1 0.4 –0.2 –0.8* 
Exposure to KJ 0.1 0.2 –0.1 –0.2 0.3 0.3 –0.1 NA 
Perceived aesthetics of KJ 0.1 0.2 –0.1 –0.2 0.4* 0.5 0.1 NA 
Perceived safety of KJ 0.1 0.3 0.2 –0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 NA 
Perceived aesthetics of piped NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.0** 
Perceived safety of piped NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.1 
Perceived convenience of piped NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.8* 
Intercept –0.3** –1.2*** –1.4*** –2.4*** 0.4° 1.8*** 1.2** 2.1*** 
Sample size
(broken down by water source) 
409
(178, 231) 
320
(89, 231) 
309
(78, 231) 
259
(28, 231) 
155
(89, 66) 
113
(89, 24) 
103
(78, 25) 
89
(70, 19) 
Goodness-of-fit (p-value)a 0.34 0.56 0.63 0.87 0.91 0.73 0.73 0.23 

Note: The outcome was the use of different alternatives versus no alternative (columns 1–4 and 8) or versus another alternative (columns 5–7). NA (not applicable) indicates that a variable was not included in the multivariate regression.

KJ, purchased water (kena jol in Bangla); GTW, government tubewell; piped, piped water.

aHosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit. A p-value <0.05 indicates a poor fit.

Statistical significance is indicated as follows: °p < 0.1; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal