Prevalence, Motivations, and Adverse Effects of Vaginal Practices in Africa and Asia: Findings from a Multicountry Household Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women worldwide use various vaginal practices to clean or modify their vulva and vagina. Additional population-level information is needed on prevalence and motivations for these practices, characteristics of users, and their adverse effects. METHODS: This was a household survey using multistage cluster sampling in Tete, Mozambique; KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa; Yogyakarta, Indonesia; and Chonburi, Thailand. In 2006-2007, vaginal practices and their motivations were examined using structured interviews with women 18-60 years of age (n=3610). RESULTS: Prevalence, frequency, and motivations varied markedly. Two thirds of women in Yogyakarta and Chonburi reported one or more practices. In Yogyakarta, nearly half ingest substances with vaginal effects, and in Chonburi, external washing and application predominate. In Tete, half reported three or four current practices, and a quarter reported five or more practices. Labial elongation was near universal, and 92% of those surveyed cleanse internally. Two third's in KwaZulu-Natal practiced internal cleansing. Insertion of traditional solid products was rare in Chonburi and Yogyakarta, but one tenth of women in KwaZulu-Natal and nearly two thirds of women in Tete do so. Multivariate analysis of the most common practice in each site showed these were more common among less educated women in Africa and young urban women in Asia. Explicit sexual motivations were frequent in KwaZulu-Natal and Tete, intended for pleasure and maintaining partner commitment. Practices in Chonburi and Yogyakarta were largely motivated by femininity and health. Genital irritation was common at African sites. CONCLUSIONS: Vaginal practices are not as rare, exotic, or benign as sometimes assumed. Limited evidence of their biomedical consequences remains a concern; further investigation of their safety and sexual health implications is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".