Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39333251›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Development and validation of a survey instrument for reusable sanitary products toward sustainable menstrual hygiene.

Vysakh Kani Kolil, Krishnashree Achuthan

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Vysakh Kani KolilCenter for Cybersecurity Systems and Networks, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri, Kollam, Kerala, 690525, India.
Krishnashree AchuthanCenter for Cybersecurity Systems and Networks, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri, Kollam, Kerala, 690525, India. krishna@amrita.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The predominant use of disposable, non-organic menstrual products has significant environmental impacts due to waste and resource depletion. Concerns over the environmental, economic, and health implications of menstrual hygiene management (MHM) have highlighted the need to explore sustainable options like reusable sanitary pads (RSPs). Despite their benefits, the adoption of RSPs is limited by a lack of awareness, availability, cost, and research. This study emphasizes the need for the development of an instrument that can capture the effectiveness, safety, and user satisfaction of RSPs, addressing a significant gap in the literature. Using a convenient sampling method, data were collected through a structured offline survey and the sample comprised 446 South Asian women of reproductive age. The instrument included 15 items designed to measure factors such as comfort, hygiene, convenience, and environmental consciousness. The instrument's reliability and validity are thoroughly assessed using reliability and factor analysis to ensure its effectiveness in capturing the multifaceted dimensions of MHM product choices. The study revealed that the overwhelming majority of women would prefer the option of RSPs that are comfortable, accessible, and easy to use and dispose of. The findings aim to provide a validated tool for manufacturers, policymakers, and researchers to evaluate reusable pads, promoting their broader acceptance and adoption of a sustainable and equitable approach to menstrual hygiene.

Indexed as

HygieneMenstrual Hygiene ProductsMenstruationAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultConfirmatory factor analysisGreen productsMenstrual hygiene managementReusable sanitary productsScale validation

Identifiers

PMID39333251
PMCPMC11436784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.