ArticleWomen's health (London, England)
Measuring menstrual hygiene in high-income countries: A scoping review.
Article in Women's health (London, England). 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.
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
backgroundDespite growing recognition of menstrual hygiene management (MHM) challenges in high-income countries (HICs), validated measurement tools specific to the context and experiences of these populations are lacking, with most tools being developed in low- and middle-income countries. The lack of validated instruments makes it difficult to examine the extent of menstrual product insecurity, period poverty, and menstrual hygiene in HICs, and limits researchers' ability to evaluate trends over time.
objectiveTo summarize menstrual hygiene measurement tools developed and/or used in HICs, as well as the domains covered and psychometric properties of these tools, such as validity and reliability. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies conducted in HICs, discuss MHM, and employ a quantitative or mixed-methods design. SOURCE OF EVIDENCE: Published studies were sourced from OVID Medline, Scopus, and CINAHL Plus using standardized search strategies. CHARTING
methodsData from the included studies were charted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).
resultsForty-five studies conducted in HICs between 1996 and 2024 met the inclusion criteria. Most were quantitative (
conclusionDespite growing research and policy attention, HICs lack standardized, validated tools to measure menstrual product insecurity, period poverty, and related outcomes. To advance menstrual equity, track progress, and improve menstrual health outcomes, there is an urgent need for reliable and validated measurement tools that support surveillance, policy evaluation, and intervention efforts.
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.