Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32497117›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

Measurement in the study of menstrual health and hygiene: A systematic review and audit.

Julie Hennegan, Deborah Jordan Brooks, Kellogg J Schwab, G J Melendez-Torres

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Digital Platforms and Educational Tools for Enhancing Menstrual Health: A Scoping Review.International journal of sexual health : official journal of the World Association for Sexual Health · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Julie HenneganThe Water Institute, Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2011-1595
Deborah Jordan BrooksThe John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding and Department of Government, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States of America.
Kellogg J SchwabThe Water Institute, Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
G J Melendez-TorresPeninsula Technology Assessment Group, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Johns Hopkins University · USDartmouth College · USUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe lack of established measurement tools in the study of menstrual health and hygiene has been a significant limitation of quantitative studies to date. However, there has been limited exploration of existing measurement to identify avenues for improvement.

methodsWe undertook two linked systematic reviews of (1) trials of menstrual health interventions and their nested studies in low- and middle-income countries, (2) studies developing or validating measures of menstrual experiences from any location. Systematic searching was undertaken in 12 databases, together with handsearching. We iteratively grouped and audited concepts measured across included studies and extracted and compared measures of each concept.

resultsA total of 23 trials, 9 nested studies and 22 measure development studies were included. Trials measured a range of outcomes including menstrual knowledge, attitudes, and practices, school absenteeism, and health. Most measure validation studies focused on assessing attitudes towards menstruation, while a group of five studies assessed the accuracy of women's recall of their menstrual characteristics such as timing and cycle length. Measures of menstrual knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and restrictions were inconsistent and frequently overlapped. No two studies measured the same menstrual or hygiene practices, with 44 different practices assessed. This audit provides a summary of current measures and extant efforts to pilot or test their performance.

conclusionsInconsistencies in both the definition and operationalisation of concepts measured in menstrual health and hygiene research should be addressed. To improve measurement, authors should clearly define the constructs they aim to measure and outline how these were operationalised for measurement. Results of this audit indicate the need for the development and validation of new measures, and the evaluation of the performance of existing measures across contexts. In particular, the definition and measurement of menstrual practices, knowledge, attitudes, norms and restrictions should be addressed. REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: CRD42018089884.

Indexed as

HygieneMenstrual CycleAdolescentAdultAttitude to HealthBathsClinical Trials as TopicCultureDysmenorrheaFemaleHealth EducationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMenstrual Hygiene ProductsMiddle AgedSocial Behavior

Identifiers

PMID32497117
PMCPMC7272008
OpenAlexW3033834328

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.