ArticleCureus2026
Acceptability, Continuation, and User Experience of Menstrual Cup Usage Among Married Women: A Prospective Observational Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
introductionMenstrual hygiene management is an essential component of women's reproductive health, influencing physical well-being, dignity, and quality of life. Despite the availability of disposable menstrual products, concerns related to environmental burden, cost, and health risks persist. Menstrual cups offer a reusable, potentially safe, and eco-friendly alternative; however, their acceptability and continued use remain limited in many settings. The present study was undertaken to evaluate the acceptability, continuation, and user experience of menstrual cup usage among married women of reproductive age. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective observational study was conducted from March 2024 to September 2025 at a tertiary care teaching hospital in Vijayapura, Karnataka on 142 healthy married women of reproductive age group. Baseline data on sociodemographic characteristics, obstetric and menstrual history, menstrual hygiene practices, and awareness of menstrual cups were collected using a structured proforma. Eligible participants received individual standardized counselling with demonstration of insertion, removal, and cleaning techniques. Follow-up assessments were conducted at one, three, and six months to evaluate acceptability, continuation of use, symptom profile, and utility. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26 (Released 2018; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States), with categorical variables expressed as frequencies and percentages and statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsMost participants were aged 26-35 years (100 (70.4%)). Awareness regarding menstrual cup use was present in 87 (61.3%), while willingness to use was high at 122 (85.9%). Continued use showed a gradual decline across follow-up, with 94 (66.2%) of participants continuing menstrual cup use at six months. Symptoms such as pain, discomfort, vaginal irritation, discharge, and leakage were more common during early use but reduced significantly over subsequent follow-ups (p < 0.001). User-reported ease of wearing, removal, and cleaning improved with continued use.
conclusionMenstrual cups showed good acceptability and progressive user adaptation over time, though not all participants continued long term. While no serious adverse events were reported, larger controlled studies are required to formally establish their long-term safety and comparative effectiveness. With appropriate counselling and follow-up support, menstrual cups represent a practical and sustainable alternative for menstrual hygiene management.
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.