Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33637096›Full record

ArticleConflict and health2021

Innovative strategies for providing menstruation-supportive water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) facilities: learning from refugee camps in Cox's bazar, Bangladesh.

Margaret L Schmitt, Olivia R Wood, David Clatworthy, Sabina Faiz Rashid, Marni Sommer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conflict and health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
12.5field-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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Menstruation myths.Nature human behaviour · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Margaret L SchmittColumbia University, Mailman School of Public Health, 722 W. 168th Street, New York, NY, 10032, USA. maggie.schmitt@columbia.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1860-2929
Olivia R WoodColumbia University, Mailman School of Public Health, 722 W. 168th Street, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
David ClatworthyInternational Rescue Committee, 122 E 42nd St, New York, NY, 10168, USA.
Sabina Faiz RashidJames P Grant School of Public Health, BRAC University, 68 Shahid Tajuddin Ahmed Sharani, Mohakhali, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Marni SommerColumbia University, Mailman School of Public Health, 722 W. 168th Street, New York, NY, 10032, USA. ms2778@columbia.edu.
Columbia University · USBRAC University · BDInternational Rescue Committee · US

Funding

United States Agency for International Development 720FDA18GR00049
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is growing attention to addressing the menstrual hygiene management (MHM) needs of the over 21 million displaced adolescent girls and women globally. Current approaches to MHM-related humanitarian programming often prioritize the provision of menstrual materials and information. However, a critical component of an MHM response includes the construction and maintenance of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) facilities, including more female-friendly toilets. This enables spaces for menstruating girls and women to change, dispose, wash and dry menstrual materials; all of which are integral tasks required for MHM. A global assessment identified a number of innovations focused on designing and implementing menstruation-supportive WASH facilities in the Rohingya refugee camps located in Cox's Bazar (CXB), Bangladesh. These pilot efforts strove to include the use of more participatory methodologies in the process of developing the new MHM-supportive WASH approaches. This study aimed to capture new approaches and practical insights on innovating menstrual disposal, waste management and laundering in emergency contexts through the conduct of a qualitative assessment in CXB.

methodsThe qualitative assessment was conducted in the Rohingya refugee camps in CXB in September of 2019 to capture new approaches and practical insights on innovating for menstrual disposal, waste management and laundering. This included Key Informant Interviews with 19 humanitarian response staff from the WASH and Protection sectors of a range of non-governmental organizations and UN agencies; Focus Group Discussions with 47 Rohingya adolescent girls and women; and direct observations of 8 WASH facilities (toilets, bathing, and laundering spaces).

resultsKey findings included: one, the identification of new female-driven consultation methods aimed at improving female beneficiary involvement and buy-in during the design and construction phases; two, the design of new multi-purpose WASH facilities to increase female beneficiary usage; three, new menstrual waste disposal innovations being piloted in communal and institutional settings, with female users indicating at least initial acceptability; and four, novel strategies for engaging male beneficiaries in the design of female WASH facilities, including promoting dialogue to generate buy-in regarding the importance of these facilities and debate about their placement.

conclusionsAlthough the identified innovative participatory methodologies and design approaches are promising, the long term viability of the facilities, including plans to expand them, may be dependent on the continued engagement of girls and women, and the availability of resources.

Identifiers

PMID33637096
PMCPMC7912835
OpenAlexW3130614450

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.