SynthesisBMJ open2025
Experiences, perceptions and barriers to use of reusable menstrual products among university students globally: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReusable menstrual products have gained increasing attention for their environmental and economic benefits, yet their uptake remains limited. University students represent a key demographic for understanding uptake, as young adults forming lifelong menstrual hygiene habits.
objectivesTo synthesise evidence on university students' knowledge, usage patterns and perceptions of reusable menstrual products, and identify barriers and facilitators to their adoption, to inform future interventions and educational efforts. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Scopus and Global Health was conducted, last updated on 31 October 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies contain data on perceptions of reusable menstrual products, specifically of students in university or higher education, or including segregated data on this population. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. All data were summarised descriptively.
results10 studies (4721 participants) across multiple countries were included. Findings suggest that while reusable menstrual products are viewed by some as cost-effective and sustainable, barriers include concerns relating to practical usage and health, limited awareness, misconceptions and cultural taboos. In the university context, peer influence, financial constraints and sociocultural factors play a significant role in shaping product choices.
conclusionsTargeted education to increase awareness and address practical concerns and misconceptions, alongside peer support and provision of reusable menstrual products, could significantly enhance the adoption of reusable menstrual products in university settings. Further research into the health impacts of these products would support educational interventions.
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.