Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33691653›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2021

Qualitative study exploring the barriers to menstrual hygiene management faced by adolescents and young people with a disability, and their carers in the Kavrepalanchok district, Nepal.

Jane Wilbur, Shubha Kayastha, Thérèse Mahon, Belen Torondel, Shaffa Hameed, Anita Sigdel, Amrita Gyawali, Hannah Kuper

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.3field-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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jane WilburLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. jane.wilbur@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5329-1337
Shubha KayasthaIndependent consultant, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Thérèse MahonWaterAid, 27-29 Durham Street, London, SE11 5JD, UK.
Belen TorondelLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Shaffa HameedLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Anita SigdelIndependent consultant, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Amrita GyawaliIndependent consultant, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Hannah KuperLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
University of London · GBWaterAid · GB

Funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation OPP1159651
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMenstrual hygiene management (MHM) is a recognised public health, social and educational issue, which must be achieved to allow the realisation of human rights. People with disabilities are likely to experience layers of discrimination when they are menstruating, but little evidence exists.

methodsThe study aims to investigate barriers to MHM that people with disabilities and their carers face in the Kavrepalanchok, Nepal, using qualitative methods. Twenty people with disabilities, aged 15-24, who menstruate and experience 'a lot of difficulty' or more across one or more of the Washington Group functional domains were included, as well as 13 carers who provide menstrual support to these individuals. Purposeful sampling was applied to select participants. Different approaches were used to investigating barriers to MHM and triangulate data: in-depth interviews, observation, PhotoVoice and ranking. We analysed data thematically, using Nvivo 11.

resultsBarriers to MHM experienced by people with disabilities differ according to the impairment. Inaccessible WASH facilities were a major challenge for people with mobility, self-care and visual impairments. People with intellectual impairments had difficulty accessing MHM information and their carers despaired when they showed their menstrual blood to others, which could result in abuse. No support mechanisms existed for carers for MHM, and they felt overwhelmed and isolated. Menstrual discomfort was a major challenge; these were managed with home remedies, or not at all. Most participants followed menstrual restrictions, which were widespread and expected; many feared they would be cursed if they did not. As disability is often viewed as a curse, this demonstrates the layers of discrimination faced.

conclusionIssues related to MHM for people with disabilities is more complex than for others in the population due to the additional disability discrimination and impairment experienced. Research exploring these issues must be conducted in different settings, and MHM interventions, tailored for impairment type and carers requirements,should be developed. Attention to, and resourcing for disability inclusive MHM must be prioritised to ensure 'no one is left behind'.

Indexed as

HygienePersons with DisabilitiesAdolescentAdultCaregiversHumansMenstruationNepalWashingtonYoung AdultCarersDisabilityMenstrual hygiene managementRightsSanitation and hygieneWater

Identifiers

PMID33691653
PMCPMC7944905
OpenAlexW3112982458

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.