ReviewConflict and health2025
Menstrual hygiene management among girls and women refugees in Africa: a scoping review.
Review in Conflict and health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Menstrual Health Under Constraint: A Meta-Synthesis of Refugee Women's Experiences.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Knowledge, economic, and WASH challenges affecting menstrual health and hygiene among nursing students in Bangladesh using a mixed-methods approach.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- An Empty Scoping Review on the Roles of mHealth Interventions on Menstrual Hygiene in Africa: Implications for Sexual and Reproductive Health Research, Policy, and Practice.Health science reports · 2026Review
- From Fragmented Projects to an Integrated, Conflict-Sensitive Reproductive Health System for Women in Somalia.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Designing equity-focused sanitation policies in Sub-Saharan Africa: the critical role of subnational data.BMC public health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMenstrual Hygiene Management (MHM) presents a significant public health challenge for refugee women and girls in Africa. Displaced populations often lack access to menstrual products, adequate Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) infrastructure, as well as comprehensive menstrual health education.
aimThis scoping review aimed to understand the state of MHM, identify key challenges, and evaluate existing interventions among refugee women and girls in Africa.
methodsEmploying Levac et al.'s framework, the review analysed evidence from databases like CINAHL, Emcare, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, focusing on studies published between 2014 and 2024. Sixteen articles met the inclusion criteria, and both numerical summaries and descriptive analyses were conducted.
resultsRefugee women and girls often lack access to both disposable and reusable menstrual products, resorting to unhygienic alternatives such as clothing, leaves, and paper. Inadequate WASH facilities restrict safe and private spaces for menstrual management. Cultural stigma and taboos surrounding menstruation contribute to social exclusion and school absenteeism among girls. The interventions included distributing dignity kits, enhancing WASH infrastructure, and providing menstrual health education; however, they were inconsistently implemented due to resource limitations and cultural obstacles.
conclusionThis study highlights the urgent need for sustainable menstrual health solutions in refugee settings. Without access to necessary products, WASH facilities, and stigma-free education, women and girls risk exclusion, health issues, and interrupted education. Addressing these barriers requires consistent, well-resourced interventions that integrate cultural sensitivity to ensure dignity and long-term impact.
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.