Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26862750›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

Do Menstrual Hygiene Management Interventions Improve Education and Psychosocial Outcomes for Women and Girls in Low and Middle Income Countries? A Systematic Review.

Julie Hennegan, Paul Montgomery

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 123 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
123citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
19.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

123 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 318 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Article

63 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julie HenneganCentre for Evidence-Based Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Paul MontgomeryCentre for Evidence-Based Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnhygienic and ineffective menstrual hygiene management has been documented across low resource contexts and linked to negative consequences for women and girls.

objectivesTo summarise and critically appraise evidence for the effectiveness of menstruation management interventions in improving women and girls' education, work and psychosocial wellbeing in low and middle income countries.

methodsStructured systematic searches were conducted in peer-reviewed and grey literature to identify studies evaluating education and resource provision interventions for menstruation management. Individual and cluster randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion, as were non-randomised controlled trials. Study characteristics, outcomes and risk of bias were extracted using a piloted form. Risk of bias was independently assessed by two researchers.

resultsEight studies described in ten citations were eligible for inclusion. Studies were highly heterogeneous in design and context. Six included assessment of education-only interventions, and three provided assessment of the provision of different types of sanitary products (menstrual cups, disposable sanitary pads, and reusable sanitary pads). A moderate but non-significant standardised mean difference was found for the two studies assessing the impact of sanitary pad provision on school attendance: 0.49 (95%CI -0.13, 1.11). Included studies were heterogeneous with considerable risk of bias. Trials of education interventions reported positive impacts on menstrual knowledge and practices, however, many studies failed to assess other relevant outcomes. No trials assessed or reported harms.

conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to establish the effectiveness of menstruation management interventions, although current results are promising. Eight trials have been conducted, but a high risk of bias was found and clinical heterogeneity precluded synthesis of most results. Whilst trials provided some indication of positive results, further research is needed to establish the role of menstruation hygiene management in education performance, employment and other psychosocial outcomes. This review provides a concise summary of present trials and highlights improvements for future work.

Indexed as

HygieneIncomeEducationFemaleHumansMenstruationOutcome Assessment, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID26862750
PMCPMC4749306
OpenAlexW2261821866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.