Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36906569›Full record

ArticleBMC women's health2023

Reusable period products: use and perceptions among young people in Victoria, Australia.

Caitlin Ramsay, Julie Hennegan, Caitlin H Douglass, Sarah Eddy, Alexandra Head, Megan S C Lim

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC women's health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. "Monthly Flower Blooms and Sheds off": Awareness, Hesitancy, and usage of Sustainable Menstrual Products among College Students of Pathanamthitta District, Kerala.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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.

Caitlin RamsayMaternal, Child and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Julie HenneganMaternal, Child and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Caitlin H DouglassMaternal, Child and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Sarah EddyMaternal, Child and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Alexandra HeadMaternal, Child and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Megan S C LimMaternal, Child and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. megan.lim@burnet.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReusable menstrual products have expanded the choices available for menstrual care and can offer long-term cost and environmental benefits. Yet, in high-income settings, efforts to support period product access focus on disposable products. There is limited research to understand young people's product use and preferences in Australia.

methodsQuantitative and open-text qualitative data were collected through an annual cross-sectional survey of young people (aged 15-29) in Victoria, Australia. The convenience sample was recruited through targeted social media advertisements. Young people who reported menstruating in the past 6 months (n = 596) were asked questions about their menstrual product use, use of reusable materials, product priorities and preferences.

resultsAmong participants, 37% had used a reusable product during their last menstrual period (24% period underwear, 17% menstrual cup, 5% reusable pads), and a further 11% had tried using a reusable product in the past. Reusable product use was associated with older age (age 25-29 PR = 3.35 95%CI = 2.09-5.37), being born in Australia (PR = 1.74 95%CI = 1.05-2.87), and having greater discretionary income (PR = 1.53 95%CI = 1.01-2.32). Participants nominated comfort, protection from leakage and environmental sustainability as the most important features of menstrual products, followed by cost. Overall, 37% of participants reported not having enough information about reusable products. Having enough information was less common among younger participants (age 25-29 PR = 1.42 95%CI = 1.20-1.68) and high school students (PR = 0.68 95%CI = 0.52-0.88). Respondents highlighted the need for earlier and better information, challenges navigating the upfront cost and availability of reusables, positive experiences with reusables, and challenges for use, including cleaning reusables and changing them outside the home.

conclusionsMany young people are using reusable products, with environmental impacts an important motivator. Educators should incorporate better menstrual care information in puberty education and advocates should raise awareness of how bathroom facilities may support product choice.

Indexed as

Menstrual Hygiene ProductsPubertyAdolescentCross-Sectional StudiesEducational StatusHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMenstruationVictoriaAdolescent girlsEnvironmental sustainabilityHealth policyMenstrual healthMenstrual hygieneReproductive healthWomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID36906569
PMCPMC10006563

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read43
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.