In the ongoing quest to comprehensively assess the impact of sanitation on well-being, a groundbreaking study has put forth compelling evidence favoring updated question framings aimed at measuring sanitation-related quality of life. This extensive research, conducted across diverse socio-economic and cultural contexts in Ethiopia and Zambia, robustly supports the adoption of a refined questionnaire format wherein the option ‘always’ signifies the most adverse outcome. The implications of this finding extend far beyond mere survey design, touching on the accuracy of data collection methods crucial for policy creation, resource allocation, and the development of targeted sanitation interventions.
Sanitation, long recognized as a critical determinant of public health, has traditionally been evaluated through binary or simplistic metrics such as access alone or the incidence of waterborne diseases. However, recognizing the nuanced ways in which sanitation affects individuals’ daily experiences has led researchers to develop more sophisticated indices. One such advancement is the Sanitation-related Quality of Life index (SanQoL-5), designed to capture the multifaceted nature of sanitation’s influence on personal dignity, comfort, safety, and emotional well-being. The current study’s pivotal comparison of old and updated question framings directly impacts the validity and reliability of this index across varying populations.
The decision to concentrate on Ethiopia and Zambia was strategic, given their contrasting sanitation landscapes and differing cultural perceptions surrounding hygiene and privacy. By administering both traditional and contemporary survey questions within these contexts, researchers were able to perform rigorous statistical analyses examining hypothesized associations across a spectrum of variables. Notably, the converging evidence from these two geographically and socioeconomically distinct countries underscores the robustness of the updated approach.
One of the key technical insights from this investigation is that the revised phrasing, which treats ‘always’ as the indication of the worst experience, yields a higher proportion of variables showing statistically significant correlations with sanitation outcomes. This enhanced discriminative capacity suggests that respondents interpret the gradations of their experiences more accurately, thus producing data that better reflect reality. Such granularity is indispensable for nuanced program evaluations and the identification of specific areas requiring urgent attention.
Moreover, the comprehensive statistical methods used in the analysis included controlling for confounding variables and ensuring that the observed associations were not artifacts of sampling biases or measurement errors. This methodological rigor enhances confidence in the external validity of the findings, making the case for adopting the updated SanQoL questionnaire internationally more compelling. Importantly, no evidence was found wherein the older question format outperformed the new, reinforcing the superiority of the revised instrument.
From a practical standpoint, incorporating these validated question framings into large-scale surveys represents a quantum leap in understanding how sanitation affects populations beyond mere physical health outcomes. It opens new research frontiers in social sciences and public health, allowing policy makers to better gauge subjective experiences such as the feeling of safety, convenience, and social acceptability related to sanitation facilities.
Furthermore, this methodological improvement is timely in light of global initiatives aimed at achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 6, which centers on clean water and sanitation for all. Precise measurements of quality-of-life impacts will inform whether infrastructure improvements translate into meaningful enhancements in people’s lives—a critical factor for justifying investments and ensuring equitable progress.
In addition to refining the measurement tools, the research also highlights the importance of cultural sensitivity and contextual adaptations in questionnaire design. Findings from Ethiopia and Zambia underscore how localized understandings of sanitation experiences can shape responses. Hence, while generalizability is significant, tailoring questions to capture culturally specific nuances remains an essential complement to the standardized framework.
The broader implications for sanitation programs cannot be overstated. Data gleaned from more reliable and valid instruments facilitate more effective tracking of interventions’ long-term impacts, allowing for iterative program design and refinement based on empirical feedback. This feedback loop is crucial for sustaining momentum in improving sanitation infrastructure and outcomes in resource-limited settings.
This research also serves as a call to action for other disciplines engaged in quality-of-life measurements. The approach exemplifies how subtle changes in question framings can substantially alter data quality and interpretation. Social scientists, epidemiologists, and development practitioners would do well to consider similar re-evaluations of their survey instruments to enhance accuracy and relevance.
Another important dimension relates to ethical considerations in survey research. Accurate measurement of individuals’ experiences ensures that their voices are authentically captured and represented in decision-making processes. This respect for respondents’ realities aligns with principles of participatory research and helps bridge the gap between data collection and meaningful social change.
The supplement to this study offers additional detailed evidence, reinforcing the robustness of the current question framings across multiple variables and demographic subgroups. The supplementary analyses, while technical, affirm that the standardized instrument performs consistently well, thereby strengthening its case for broad adoption.
It is also noteworthy that the study’s authors, an international team of researchers, collaborated effectively across disciplinary boundaries, combining expertise in epidemiology, sociology, and statistics. This multidisciplinary approach exemplifies the best practices in global health research, ensuring that complex problems receive comprehensive analytical attention.
Given the evolving landscape of sanitation challenges—exacerbated by rapid urbanization, climate change, and pandemics—tools like the SanQoL-5 index, validated through robust methodologies, are indispensable. They not only inform local and national policy but also contribute to a global understanding of how sanitation impacts human quality of life at scale.
Ultimately, the evidence presented signals a paradigm shift in sanitation research, moving beyond infrastructure-focused metrics to embrace the lived experience of sanitation users. This human-centered perspective is critical for ensuring that technological and infrastructural advances translate into genuine improvements in human dignity and well-being.
In summary, the validation of the updated sanitation-related quality of life questions marks a significant advancement in public health measurement science. By systematically demonstrating that ‘always’ as the worst outcome elicits more statistically significant and meaningful associations, the study charts a course for future research and programming that is more responsive to the realities of those it seeks to serve.
As sanitation remains a cornerstone of public health and human development, this research enriches the arsenal of validated tools available to researchers, practitioners, and policy makers worldwide. The adoption of such rigorously tested instruments promises to enhance the precision, relevance, and impact of sanitation interventions in diverse global contexts.
—
Article References:
Akter, F., Banze, N., Capitine, I. et al. Validity and reliability of the Sanitation-related Quality of Life index (SanQoL-5) in six countries.
Nat Water (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-025-00434-7
