MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197576669 · doi:10.3389/frph.2021.703978

Menstrual Hygiene Management—Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Among Female College Students in Bhutan

2021· article· en· W3197576669 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Reproductive Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenstrual Health and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of CanadaFondation Veuve Emile Metz-TeschWorld Health Organization
KeywordsHygieneSanitationMenstruationDemographicsMedicineFamily medicineEnvironmental healthDemographyPersonal hygienePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Girls and women face substantial menstrual hygiene management (MHM) challenges in low- and middle-income countries. These challenges are related to inadequate knowledge and insufficient water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) facilities. Currently, the literature on MHM among college-attending women in Bhutan is scarce. We aimed to explore the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of female college students from all the 10 government colleges of Bhutan, documenting the conditions of available MHM facilities, from August to September 2018. Methods: A cross-sectional KAP survey was conducted with a random sample of female students from all years and a random sample of MHM facilities at each college and hostel. A questionnaire was adapted from a similar study conducted with school students in Bhutan. Socio-demographics, overall KAP findings, and differences in KAP between first and final year students were analyzed; college and hostel toilets were self-reported and directly observed. Results: In the survey, 1,010 participants completed the self-administered questionnaire. The comprehensive knowledge of menstruation was found to be low (35.5%) among participants. Half of the participants (50.3%) reported their mother as the source of information, and 35.1% of the participants agreed that women should not enter a shrine during menstruation. It was also reported that approximately 4% of median monthly pocket money was spent on the absorbents, and 96.9% of absorbents were wrapped before disposal. Half of the participants (55.1%) reported that their daily activities were affected due to menstruation, and 24.2% of the female students missed college due to dysmenorrhea. One-fifth of the participants (21.3%) reported unavailability of water in college, 80.1% of the participants reported absence of soap for hand washing, and 24.1% described no bins for disposal. The participants also reported that in 33.7% of hostel toilets, the door locks were missing. The direct observations also had similar findings. Conclusions: Female students living in hostels during college years lose considerable resources during their formative years of learning, such as time, energy, and money, due to issues of menstruation management. Although the overall understanding of menstruation was low, the MHM practices of our participants scored highly, and the vast majority of them asked for a platform to discuss menstruation. Despite some agreement with menstrual taboos (e.g., visiting shrine), only 5.1% of the participants were uncomfortable conversing about MHM. Improved public health knowledge, psychosocial/medical support, and WASH infrastructure with freely available menstrual products could lead to more effective MHM practices among female college students.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.367 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it