ReviewFrontiers in reproductive health2025
Mapping menstrual health and hygiene progress in US schools: a systematic policy review and comparison across states.
Review in Frontiers in reproductive health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping menstrual health and hygiene progress in US schools: a systematic policy review and comparison across states.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2025Review
- "Frontiers in reproductive 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Menstrual health and hygiene (MHH) policy initiatives have emerged as a key strategy to improve adolescent MHH, particularly through the expansion of state-level legislation aimed at increasing access to menstrual materials in K-12 schools in the United States (US). However, limited research has evaluated the implementation or effectiveness of these policies, and efforts to rigorously track and characterize existing policies remain limited. This study systematically reviewed and characterized state-level policies concerning menstrual material access in K-12 schools. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of all 50 US state government websites and legal databases to identify relevant legislation. Using MHH domains covered by the indicators recommended by the Global MHH Monitoring Group, we characterized policies. We also estimated policy reach by state and overall using National Center for Education Statistics enrollment data. Results: We found that 32 (64%) US states have enacted policies since 2017, which have the potential to improve MHH for approximately nine million, or 34%, of K-12 students. Most policies lack comprehensive coverage of essential MHH domains, including only three of the seven MHH domains on average. Discussion: These findings highlight the need for more rigorous research to evaluate the effectiveness of different policies and identify the best strategies for implementation.
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.