ArticleFrontiers in global women's health2024
Suitability, acceptability, feasibility of modern menstrual methods: a qualitative study in Coimbatore district, Tamil Nadu, India.
Article in Frontiers in global women's health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Objective: To examine women's perceptions of modern menstrual hygiene methods (MMHM), such as tampons and menstrual cups, focusing on socio-demographic variations and special groups in the Coimbatore district of Tamil Nadu. Methods: A qualitative study among women of reproductive age (15-49 years) group was conducted using Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) among twelve women subgroups independently in 2023. Results: The present study involved 23 focus group discussions (FGDs) across various groups of women, including those in formal and informal sectors, urban and rural areas, school and college students, healthcare workers, women in sports, tribal women, transgender women, and female sex workers (FSW), with a total of 188 participants. The age range varied across groups, from 15 to 45 years. Over half of the participants were married (51.1%), and 68.7% were literate, though illiteracy was higher in the informal sector, rural, tribal areas, transgender women, and FSW groups. Sanitary pads were the most used menstrual hygiene method (88.3%), followed by cloth (4.8%), and modern methods like menstrual cups or tampons (1.6%). Notably, 70% of FSW and 28.6% of tribal women still used cloths. Menstrual hygiene choices were often influenced by family recommendations, school-based menstrual hygiene sessions, institutional policies, and social media. Regarding satisfaction, 27.1% were content with their menstrual hygiene method, citing accessibility, affordability, and leakage prevention. However, issues with pads included heat, rashes, and discomfort. A significant number (31.4%) shifted from cloth to pads recently, mainly due to leakage and lack of adequate washing facilities. Only 6.1% had tried modern menstrual methods, with tampons and menstrual cups being considered more suitable but less feasible, especially among tribal women. Participant concerns ranged from the potential health risks of sanitary pads to waste disposal challenges. Recommendations included public menstrual hygiene management (MHM) dispensers, better waste collection practices, and increased awareness through advertisements. Some participants advocated for the concept of free menstruation, emphasizing informed choices and accessibility for all. Conclusion: The findings suggest that increasing access to modern menstrual hygiene products, coupled with comprehensive education and support, could improve acceptance and feasibility, especially for marginalized and underrepresented women.
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.