Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42698765›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in reproductive health2026

Feminine hygiene products and black women's reproductive health: a review of health inequities, racialized marketing, and practice implications.

Wendasha Jenkins Hall, Ibriana Garvey

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in reproductive health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Wendasha Jenkins HallDepartment of Health Promotion and Physical Education, Wellstar College of Health and Human Services, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, United States.
Ibriana GarveyIndependent Researcher, Philadelphia, PA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Feminine hygiene products (FHPs), including douches, washes, and deodorants, are widely marketed as tools for maintaining vaginal cleanliness and freshness despite evidence linking some products to adverse sexual and reproductive health outcomes. Black women have historically been disproportionately targeted by FHP marketing and use certain products at higher rates, raising concerns about the intersection of vaginal hygiene practices, health inequities, and structural stigma. This review synthesizes historical, public health, clinical, and sociocultural scholarship on FHPs and Black women's reproductive health, with particular attention to the role of racialized marketing, cultural norms surrounding vaginal hygiene, and patient-provider communication. The literature suggests that FHP use cannot be understood solely as an individual health behavior but must be situated within broader historical, social, and structural contexts that shape health beliefs and practices. Greater attention to culturally responsive healthcare communication, evidence-based patient education, and regulatory oversight is needed to support vaginal health and reduce reproductive health inequities among Black women.

Indexed as

black womenfeminine hygiene productsgenderhealth disparitiesmarketingrace

Identifiers

PMID42698765
PMCPMC13542635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.