Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34860828›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

Drivers of menstrual material disposal and washing practices: A systematic review.

Hannah Jayne Robinson, Dani Jennifer Barrington

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hannah Jayne RobinsonUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2209-600X
Dani Jennifer BarringtonUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1486-9247

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDisposal and washing facilities and services for menstrual materials are often designed based upon technical specifications rather than an in-depth understanding of what drives peoples' choices of practices. OBJECTIVES AND DATA SOURCES: This systematic review identified and summarised the main behavioural drivers pertaining to the choice of disposal and washing practices of menstrual materials through the thematic content analysis and study appraisal of 82 publications (80 studies) on menstrual health and hygiene published since 1999, reporting the outcomes of primary research across 26 countries.

resultsDisposal and washing behaviours are primarily driven by the physical state of sanitation facilities; however, this is intrinsically linked to taboos surrounding and knowledge of menstruation. IMPLICATIONS: Using reasons given for disposal and washing practices by menstruators or those who know them well, or inferred by authors of the reviewed studies, we identify the key considerations needed to design facilities and services which best suit the desired behaviours of both planners and those who menstruate. INCLUSIVITY: The term menstruators is used throughout to encompass all those mentioned in the studies reviewed (girls and women); although no studies explicitly stated including non-binary or transgender participants, this review uses inclusive language that represents the spectrum of genders that may experience menstruation. REGISTRATION: The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO: 42019140029.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdolescentAdultDeveloping CountriesFemaleHumansHygieneMenstrual Hygiene ProductsMenstruationMiddle AgedSanitation

Identifiers

PMID34860828
PMCPMC8641861

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.