Knowledge and Understanding of Menstrual Health in Women With Intellectual Disabilities: A Brief Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women with intellectual disabilities (ID) often lack effective education and support surrounding menstrual health. This can directly impact self-care, participation and regular engagement in sport and more generally, health and wellbeing. METHODS: Twenty-two athletes from the Special Olympics were surveyed to assess knowledge and understanding of menstrual health. Responses were analyzed descriptively to identify their gaps in knowledge and understanding. RESULTS: Many participants had misconceptions about menstrual hygiene, with most incorrectly estimating how frequently sanitary products should be changed. Few participants used tampons, which likely impacted their menstrual management, especially during sport activities. Additionally, knowledge about menopause was notably low, with no significant difference between age groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights a critical need for targeted education and resources to improve menstrual health knowledge among women Special Olympic athletes with ID. Addressing these gaps can enhance their independence, quality of life and sport participation. Further research and interventions are necessary to better support this population in managing their menstrual health effectively.
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 | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| 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".