ArticlePloS one2024
Cross-national variation in the prevalence and correlates of current use of reusable menstrual materials: Analysis of 42 cross-sectional surveys in low-income, lower-middle-income, and upper-middle-income countries.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effect of menstrual cups on vaginal health, reproductive tract and urogenital infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EBioMedicine · 2026Pooled it
- Socioeconomic inequalities and its spatial pattern in sanitary napkin use in Bangladesh: evidence from the 2019 multiple indicator cluster survey.Population health metrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study investigates the prevalence of the use of reusable menstrual materials in LMICs, examines differences in prevalence between countries and areas, and identifies individual and country-level factors associated with their use.
methodsData from Multiple Indicator Cluster surveys conducted between 2017 and 2020 in LMICs were used. Prevalence estimates and 95% CIs were calculated for overall, rural, and urban areas. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify individual and country-level factors associated with the use of reusable menstrual materials.
resultsThe study included 42 surveys from LMICs, with 1653850 weighted women and girls aged 15-49 years. The overall prevalence of the use of reusable menstrual materials was 12.1% (95% CI 12.1-12.2), with significant variation between and within countries, ranging from 0.5% (0.3-0.8) in Serbia to 97.2% (96.5-97.9) in Sao Tome and Principe. The prevalence was higher in rural areas (23.9% [23.8-24.0]) than in urban areas (6.2% [6.2-6.2]), with significant differences between most countries. Use of reusable menstrual materials was associated with lower education levels, being married, low economic status, living in Asia and Africa, living in countries with lower GDP, living in rural areas, and limited availability of private places to wash menstrual materials. The prevalence of the use of reusable menstrual materials had an inverse linear relationship with the country's GDP.
conclusionsThe study found that the use of reusable menstrual materials is more prevalent among women and girls in rural areas, those with lower education levels, lower economic status, and those living in countries with lower GDP. Given these disparities, policies and initiatives targeted at improving menstrual health in LMICs should focus on socioeconomically disadvantaged groups to ensure they have access to safe and appropriate menstrual materials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.