An Exploratory Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Period Poverty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Period poverty is a global health and social issue that needs to be addressed. The primary aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive understanding on period poverty, including outcomes associated menstruation. Methods All observational and randomised clinical trials reporting menstruation challenges, menstrual poverty and menstrual products were included. Our search strategy included multiple electronic databases of PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, ProQuest and EMBASE. Studies published in a peer review journal in English between the 30 th of April 1980 and the 30 th of April 2022 were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias (RoB) of the systematic included studies. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported overall and for sub-groups. Results A total of 80 studies were systematically selected, where 38 were included in the meta-analysis. Of the 38 studies, 28 focused on children and young girls (i.e., 10-24 years old) and 10 included participants with a wider age range of 15-49 years. The prevalence of using disposable sanitary pads was 45% (95% CI = [0.35,0.58]). The prevalence of menstrual education pre-menarche was 68% (95% CI = [0.56, 0.82]). The prevalence of good MHM was 39% (95% CI = [0.25, 0.61]). Women in rural area (OR = 0.30, 95% CI = [0.13, 0.69]) were 0.70 times less likely to have good MHM practices than those living in urban area. Discussion There was a lack of evidence, especially from low- and middle-income countries. Further research to better understand the scope and prevalence of period poverty should be considered. This will enable the development of improved policies to increase access to menstrual products and medical support where necessary. Funding Not Applicable Registration A systematic methodology was developed and published (CRD42022339536).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".