Knowledge, Attitude, And Practices Regarding Menstrual Hygiene Among Girls in Ghizer, Gilgit, Pakistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Menstrual hygiene is a critical issue encountered by women and girls of the reproductive age, which negatively affects their health and empowerment. It is still deemed a taboo in several parts of the world and girls hesitate to discuss menstruation with their family members, friends, or schoolteachers, which creates hurdles when they attain their menarche. Girls residing in rural areas encounter more problems, since they lack proper resources, and knowledge to manage their menstruation in school as well as at home. Methods The descriptive cross-sectional design was used to assess the study questions. The consecutive sampling techniques was applied to recruit 300 female participants from remote area of Gilgit, Pakistan, who were 13- to 22-year-old. A pre-tested questionnaire was utilized to collect the data, and to analyze the data the SPSS version 21.0 was used. Results The study found that more than half of the participants had poor level of knowledge, practices, and negative attitude towards menstrual hygiene. This could be because of many cultural and social taboos attached to menstrual hygiene. Conclusions The study concluded that the study participants were not knowledgeable about menstrual hygiene. They had poor practices and attitude regarding menstrual hygiene. Hence, it is recommended that frequent sessions should be conducted by health care workers to enhance the knowledge of parents, teachers, and young girls, to increase the positive attitude and practices regarding menstrual hygiene. Keywords menstruation, knowledge, attitude, practices, Adolescents
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".