ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2026
Cost-Minimisation and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Reusable Menstrual Pads Compared to Disposable Pads in a Low-Resource Nigerian Setting.
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMenstrual hygiene management poses significant economic and environmental challenges, with disposable products contributing to period poverty and plastic waste. Robust economic evaluations comparing reusable menstrual pads to disposable alternatives are lacking, particularly in low-income settings.
aimThis study assessed the costs, cost-minimisation outcomes, and cost-benefit implications of reusable menstrual pads compared with disposable pads and examined socio-economic factors associated with perceived economic value and willingness to adopt reusable pads.
methodsA cross-sectional analytical study was conducted among 426 women and girls in Kano, Nigeria. A cost-minimisation analysis from the user perspective compared the cost per menstrual cycle managed, assuming equivalent menstrual-cycle coverage for reusable and disposable pads. A cost-benefit analysis incorporated monetised environmental externalities related to avoided menstrual waste. Costs were reported in 2025 Nigerian Naira and United States dollars using an exchange rate of ₦1650 = US$1. Sensitivity analyses assessed uncertainty in key cost and waste-management parameters.
resultsReusable menstrual pads were more cost-saving compared with disposable pads under the base-case assumptions. Disposable pads cost ₦1425 per cycle, while reusable pads cost ₦413 per cycle. Over 5 years, total undiscounted costs were ₦85,500 for disposable pads and ₦24,780 for reusable pads, yielding net savings of ₦60,720 per user. Including avoided waste-management costs, the net social benefit of switching to reusable pads was ₦63,609 over 5 years. The mean Likert score for the statement that reusable pads are more economical in the long run was 4.26 (SD 0.78), while the mean Likert score for the statement that upfront cost is a major barrier was 4.29 (SD 0.76). Perceived economic value was significantly associated with income (p = 0.003) and education (p < 0.001).
conclusionReusable menstrual pads may offer substantial cost savings and additional societal benefits through reduced menstrual waste in low-resource contexts. Programmes promoting reusable pads should address the upfront purchase cost through subsidies, financing models, or targeted distribution.
Identifiers
42714720What 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.