Menstrual hygiene management in two districts of Malawi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 Abstract Menstrual hygiene management (MHM) forms a critical component of ensuring access to adequate and equitable sanitation for all, as outlined in SDG 6.2. Despite its importance, little is known about MHM in Malawi, particularly at a household level. Through a household survey of MHM within 2 districts, we evaluated the type of menstrual absorbents used by people who menstruate. Reusable cloths/rags were the most used menstrual absorbent, used by 79.5% of respondents, whilst disposable absorbents, such as tampons and sanitary pads, were used by 18.6% of respondents. Appropriate MHM also incorporates adequate management of MHM materials, including the washing and drying of reusable menstrual absorbents. We evaluated the cleaning of reusable menstrual absorbents; most respondents (90.1%) reported appropriate washing of menstrual absorbents using soap and water, however only 20.3% reported that menstrual absorbents were dried outside in the sun (as is best practise) with most reporting that reusable menstrual absorbents were dried inside their homes. Our findings highlight the need for improved MHM within Malawi, not only in the access and affordability of appropriate menstrual absorbents but also the promotion of appropriate washing and drying of menstrual absorbents.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".