ReviewReproductive health2026
Gender equity and menstrual justice: a psychosocial review on stigma and discrimination in access to reproductive health.
Review in Reproductive health, 2026. 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.
- Menstrual Health Under Constraint: A Meta-Synthesis of Refugee Women's Experiences.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe taboo and stigma surrounding menstruation remain deeply entrenched in diverse sociocultural contexts, generating significant inequalities in education, health, employment, and social participation. These barriers disproportionately affect individuals in vulnerable situations and are closely linked to what is known as menstrual poverty; defined as limited access to hygiene products, reliable information, and adequate water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) conditions. This review aims to critically analyse recent scientific literature on menstrual health and management, identifying key thematic areas, persistent inequalities, and proposed strategies across various social and geographical contexts.
methodsA narrative review was conducted of peer-reviewed literature published between 2019 and 2025 in international databases. From an initial pool of 905 records, 36 studies were selected based on pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria. These studies employed diverse methodologies, including qualitative, quantitative, theoretical approaches, and literature reviews. The analysis was structured around six thematic axes: menstrual stigma, structural discrimination, menstrual poverty, media representations, labour legislation, and menstrual activism.
resultsThe reviewed studies demonstrate that menstrual stigma has a multidimensional impact, manifesting in social exclusion, medicalization of menstruating bodies, institutional neglect, and the persistence of discriminatory practices. Menstrual poverty, identified both in low-income and high-income settings, adversely affects the physical, emotional, and social well-being of menstruating individuals. Furthermore, the review highlights a lack of inclusive public policies, limited labour regulatory frameworks, and the reproduction of stigmatizing narratives in the media. Nevertheless, notable advances are emerging in the fields of activism, education, and legislative initiatives.
conclusionsThe findings underscore the urgent need to develop intersectional public policies that approach menstrual health through a human rights, gender equity, and social justice lens. The review advocates for strengthened menstrual literacy, improved access to menstrual products and appropriate infrastructure, and the integration of menstrual health into educational, healthcare, and workplace systems as a pathway to ensure a dignified, healthy, and equitable menstrual experience.
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.