ArticleWomen's health (London, England)
Counting every cycle: Validating a measure of period product insecurity in the United States.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriod product insecurity (PPI), a material hardship characterized by the repeated inability to afford menstrual products, is rarely integrated into mainstream poverty research in part because we lack measures to capture its incidence.
objectivesThis article introduces and validates a new measurement instrument, the Van Ness Period Product Insecurity Scale (VNPPIS), which measures PPI.
designThe VNPPIS includes a 7-item gold standard scale for rigorous research applications and a 4-item short form tailored for time- or resource-constrained settings. The 7-item and 4-item scales capture four key domains of PPI: access and affordability, worry, coping, and consequences.
methodsScale development included cognitive interviews (
resultsResults from the national survey showed that roughly 40% of the U.S. adult population is eligible to be screened for PPI. After fielding the VNPPIS in a national sample, results show that approximately 20% of those screened were found to experience PPI, meaning 8% of the U.S. adult population are likely to experience PPI. Results demonstrate both VNPPIS versions' strong internal consistency and evidence of face, construct, and predictive validity. PPI is moderately correlated with food insecurity and other known financial strains but emerges as a distinct material hardship. Notably, PPI is a predictor of elevated risk for anxiety and depression, outperforming food insecurity.
conclusionThese findings affirm the VNPPIS as a reliable and valid tool that can inform research, policy design, and interventions.
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.