Correction to: Factors associated with water service continuity for the Rural Populations of Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ethiopia, and Mozambique (Environmental Science and Technology (2019) 53:8 (4355-4363) DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b07173)

In the Results section of the originally published article,1 there are several instances where we incorrectly reported predicted water service continuity (WSC) values as odds ratios (OR). We have provided a corrected version of the relevant text in the Results section below, with the updated text (i.e., WSC) shown in bold. The error does not affect the figures or conclusions of the article. RESULTS Pakistan. Page 4359. "⋯ the model predicted higher WSC for tube wells/boreholes (WSC = 95%, CI = 75-99%), piped supply (WSC = 80%, CI = 47-95%), and other water sources (WSC = 88%, CI = 51-98%) compared to when financial contributions were not made for tube wells/boreholes (WSC = 85%, CI = 51-97%), piped supply (WSC = 57%, CI = 23- 85%), and other water sources (WSC = 70%, CI = 28-94%)." Ethiopia. Page 4359. "The model predicted WSC for springs (WSC = 91%, CI = 54-99%), surface water (WSC = 82%, CI = 36-97%), and other water sources (WSC = 79%, CI = 42-95%) to be higher than tube wells/boreholes (WSC = 73%, CI = 24-96%) when holding⋯" Mozambique. Page 4360. "⋯ the model predicted sources with good water appearance to have higher WSC for tube wells/boreholes (WSC = 97%, CI = 88-99%), dug wells (WSC = 98%, CI = 90-100%), surface water (WSC = 99%, CI = 93-100%), and other water sources (WSC = 98%, CI = 92- 99%) compared to tube wells/boreholes (WSC = 93%, CI = 77-98%), dug wells (WSC = 94%, CI = 80-99%), surface water (WSC = 96%, CI = 85-99%), and other water sources (WSC = 94%, CI = 85-98%) with poor water appearance.".