Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36401238›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

Menstrual hygiene practices among adolescent women in rural India: a cross-sectional study.

Aditya Singh, Mahashweta Chakrabarty, Shivani Singh, Rakesh Chandra, Sourav Chowdhury, Anshika Singh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.4field-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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Aditya SinghBanaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Mahashweta ChakrabartyBanaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India. mahashweta.c1997@gmail.com.
Shivani SinghIndia Health Action Trust, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Rakesh ChandraTata Institute of Social Science, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Sourav ChowdhuryRaiganj University, Raiganj, West Bengal, India.
Anshika SinghBanaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Banaras Hindu University · INIndia Health Action Trust · INRaiganj University · INTata Institute of Social Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExclusive use of hygienic methods (sanitary napkins, locally prepared napkins, tampons, and menstrual cups) to prevent the visibility of bloodstains during menstruation is still considerably low among adolescent women in rural India. However, no prior research has explored the prevalence and determinants of exclusive hygienic methods among rural Indian adolescent women. To address this gap, this study examines the factors affecting adolescent women's exclusive use of hygienic methods in rural India. Additionally, this study explores state- and district-level geographical disparities in the exclusive use of hygienic methods among adolescent women in rural India.

methodsInformation on 95,551 adolescent women from rural India from the latest round of National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) was analyzed. Bivariate statistics and multilevel logistic regression analysis were used to assess the Individual- and community-level factors associated with exclusive use of hygienic methods among adolescent women in rural India. Choropleth maps were used to discern the geographical disparities in the exclusive use of hygienic methods.

resultsIn rural India, only 42% of adolescent women exclusively used hygienic methods, with substantial geographic disparities at the state and district levels. At the state level, the exclusive use of hygienic methods varied from 23% in Uttar Pradesh to 85% in Tamil Nadu. Even greater variation was observed at the district level. There was a clear north-south divide in the exclusive use of hygienic methods among adolescent women in rural India. The results of multilevel logistic regression indicated a considerable amount of variation in the exclusive use of hygienic methods at community level which further reduced when controlled for individual and community-level factors. Rural Indian adolescent women with higher education (AOR:3.20, 95% CI: 2.81-3.64), from general category (AOR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.07-1.21), with medium mass media exposure (AOR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.35-1.51), and from richest wealth quintile (AOR: 3.98, 95% CI: 3.69-4.30) were more likely to use hygienic methods exclusively.

conclusionWide differential across biodemographic and socioeconomic groups, and substantial geographic disparities at state- and district-level in the exclusive use of hygienic methods suggests a need to adopt context-specific interventions for adolescent women in rural India. Distribution of subsidized or free menstrual hygiene methods to disadvantaged adolescent women, and in the low-prevalence districts may increase the level of exclusive use of hygienic methods remarkably.

Indexed as

HygieneMenstruationAdolescentCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIndiaMenstrual Hygiene ProductsHygienic methodsIndiaMenstrual hygieneRural IndiaSanitary napkins Adolescent women

Identifiers

PMID36401238
PMCPMC9675161
OpenAlexW4309370166

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.