Implementation of urban health extension program: hygiene and environmental health packeges in Addis Ketema sub city, Ethiopia.
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2018-02
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Addis Ababa Universty
Abstract
Introduction: Health Extension program is designed and implemented in recognition of the
fact that the major factor underlying the poor health status of the country’s population is the lack
of empowerment of households and communities to promote health and prevent disease.
Although the government is trying to solve urban health problems through UHEP, still there are
challenges and/or problems in waste management, access to sanitary facilities, safe and adequate
water supply causing about 60-80 % of health problems.
Objective: To assess the implementation status of urban health extension program of hygiene
and environmental health packages in Addis Ketema Sub City, Addis Ababa.
Methods: Community based cross-sectional study design using quantitative and qualitative
methods was conducted from September, 2016 to June, 2017 in Addis Ketema Sub City, Addis
Ababa. For quantitative data a total of 765 households was selected using multi stage sampling
procedure and qualitative data obtained through key informant interview of purposively selected
participants. The quantitative data entered and analyzed using SPSS version 20.0 and qualitative
data analyzed by thematic method manually.
Results: The overall level of implementation of hygiene and environmental health packages are
34.7 %. Age group with 36-45,46-55 and above 55 years old respondents were 99.7%,99% and
97% less likely implement [AOR=0.003,95%CI=0.001-0.057],[AOR=0.01,95%CI=0.00-0.041],
[AOR=0.01,95%CI=0.009-0.15] compared to the age group 26-35 years. Female household
respondents 7.3 times more likely to implement the hygiene and environmental health packages
than the male respondents [AOR=7.3, 95%CI=3.211-6.157]. Monthly income between 501-1000
Eth Birr have 6.8 times more likely to implement than households income less than 501 Eth birr
[AOR=6.80,95%CI=2.35-10.31].
Conclusion and recommendation: the level of implementation was low. There were
variations in the level of implementation among the packages. Community resistance for the
program, Governmental constraint and very poor supportive supervision are the main reasons for
low implementation status of environmental health packages. Community ownership and
involvement, continues supportive supervision and further study is important for better
implementation.
Description
Keywords
Health Extension program