ArticleFrontiers in reproductive health2025
"
Article in Frontiers in reproductive health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: Since 2017, 32 US states have enacted policies to increase menstrual material access in schools. Yet, the implementation and equity of these efforts remain poorly understood. This mixed methods study evaluated the implementation-as-usual (IAU) processes of Georgia's statewide MHH policy, the first in the US to establish recurring appropriations for menstrual materials in public schools without mandating their provision. Methods: We conducted document reviews and key informant interviews (KIIs) with state, district, and school-level stakeholders to evaluate IAU. Using framework analysis, we identified and described the core implementation components guided by Quality Implementation Framework and Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation. Results: Georgia's funding-based approach facilitated administrator buy-in, signaled state support, and enabled local adaptation across contexts. Advocacy groups filled key capacity gaps by providing technical assistance, training, and feedback to policymakers, which helped sustain and expand appropriations. However, limited programmatic guidance led to variability in implementation, communication gaps, and menstrual material access across schools. Discussion: Findings illustrate the trade-offs between flexibility and accountability in statewide MHH policy design. Appropriations without mandates can enhance local ownership but require complementary structures for guidance and monitoring to ensure equitable and effective 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.