ArticleFrontiers in global women's health2025
Menstrual hygiene management practices among rural females: findings from a rural health demographic environmental surveillance system (HDESS) cohort in Odisha, Eastern India.
Article in Frontiers in global women's health, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Menstrual hygiene management is an important public health component to promote reproductive health, especially in rural areas of low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Present study assessed the menstrual hygiene practices, the disposal methods and associated health effects among Methods: A cross-sectional survey was carried out in March-May 2023 using three cohorts of participants, namely school students, college students, and community women aged between 14 and 49 years and currently experiencing cycles of menstruation. The study used a multi-stage random sampling method with a descriptive analysis comparing patterns of sanitary pad use, its disposal practice and complications linked to the use of pads. Continuous variables such as age and cost incurred on menstrual products were reported using mean and standard deviation. The chi-squared value was used to determine possible associations and affirm the statistical significance, Results: Among 622 participants, 541 (86.9%) reported using sanitary pads. Cloth users rated their experience as "excellent" (48.7%), while dissatisfaction was highest among government-provided pad users (29.7%). Self-procured pad users reported the highest "manageable" experience (44.9%). The most common method of disposing the sanitary materials was by burying (40.2%). Approximately 68.32% of participants reported menstruation related health issues whilst 23.9% reported sanitary pad-related issues. About 16.8% of the participants reported of menstrual irregularities, school students being the most (44.8%). Discussion: The use of disposable sanitary pads appear to be the most common menstrual hygiene management practice in rural areas. Awareness, shame, and costs could be barriers to accessing sanitary pads along with poor environmental impact when disposing of these using improper methods. Reform the policy by introducing awareness of overall health implications linked to menstrual hygiene and access to low-cost menstrual management products could promote reproductive health. Also, government partnerships with NGOs to implement village-level menstrual waste management systems, subsidies for eco-friendly pad production, and mandatory disposal education in school health programs could mitigate the problem.
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.