Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38481834›Full record

Trial reportFrontiers in public health2024

Water, sanitation and hygiene at sex work venues to support menstrual needs.

Penelope A Phillips-Howard, Edyth Osire, Cynthia Akinyi, Garazi Zulaika, Fredrick O Otieno, Supriya D Mehta

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase II
In one paragraph

Trial report in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Penelope A Phillips-HowardDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Edyth OsireNyanza Reproductive Health Society, Kisumu, Kenya.
Cynthia AkinyiNyanza Reproductive Health Society, Kisumu, Kenya.
Garazi ZulaikaDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Fredrick O OtienoNyanza Reproductive Health Society, Kisumu, Kenya.
Supriya D MehtaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Rush Medical College, Chicago, IL, United States.
Nyanza Reproductive Health Society · KELiverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GBRush University Medical Center · US

Funding

Single arm trial of menstrual cups among economically vulnerable women to reduce Bacterial vaginosis and STIs through reduced harmful sexual and menstrual practicesR01AI170564 · NIAID · RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Supriya Dinesh Mehta · 2022 to 2026
$3.0M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI170564
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Adequate menstrual health and hygiene (MHH) is necessary for women's health and equity of all menstruators. Female sex workers (FSW) require good MHH to prevent discomfort and exposure to pathogens. No studies have evaluated water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) conditions of FSW. We report on a cross-sectional WASH assessment at FSW venues in Kisumu, western Kenya. Methods: Stakeholders identified 77 FSW venues in Kisumu, of which 47 were randomly sampled and visited between April-May 2023. A standardized structured survey of WASH conditions was deployed by trained research staff using Android tablets after proprietor's consent. WASH scores ranging 0-3 were computed based on point each for direct observation of water available, soap available, and acceptable latrine. MHH scores ranging between 0-4 were computed (one point each) for direct observation of: currently available soap and water, locking door on a usable latrine, functional lighting, and a private area for changing clothes or menstrual materials, separate from the latrine(s). WASH and MHH scores were compared by venue type using non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests, and non-parametric Spearman rank tests. Results: Full WASH criteria was met by 29.8% of venues; 34.0% had no adequate WASH facilities; 46.8% had no female latrine; and 25.5% provided soap and water in private spaces for women. While 76.6% had menstrual waste disposal only 14 (29.8%) had covered bins. One in 10 venues provided adequate MHM facilities. Poorest WASH facilities were in brothels and in bars, and three-quarters of bars with accommodation had no MHH facilities. Discussion: WASH and MHH services were sub-optimal in the majority of FSW venues, preventing menstrual management safely, effectively, with dignity and privacy. This study highlights the unmet need for MHH support for this population. Poor MHH can deleteriously impact FSW health and wellbeing and compound the stigma and shame associated with their work and ability to stay clean. Acceptable and cost-effective solutions to sustainably improve WASH facilities for these populations are needed. Trial registration: Clinicaltrial.gov NCT0566678.

Indexed as

SanitationSex WorkersCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansHygieneSex WorkSoapsWaterSoapsWaterfemale sex workersmenstrual health and hygiene (MHH)reproductive tract infectionssanitation and hygiene (WASH)sexual and reproductive healthwaste disposalwater

Identifiers

PMID38481834
PMCPMC10936742
OpenAlexW4392242143

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.