Dataset Information

"The weather is not good": exploring the menstrual health experiences of menstruators with and without disabilities in Vanuatu.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Menstrual health is essential for gender equality and achieving the sustainable development goals. Though currently lacking, understanding and addressing menstrual health and social related inequalities requires comparison of experiences between menstruators with and without disabilities.

Methods

We completed a mixed-methods population-based study of water, sanitation and hygiene, disability and menstrual health in TORBA and SANMA Provinces, Vanuatu. Methods included a census, nested case-control study, in-depth interviews (IDIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), PhotoVoice and structured observations. We undertook a population census of 11,000+ households and recruited 164 menstruators with and 169 without disabilities (aged 10-45) into a nested case-control study. 20 menstruators across both groups were selected for the qualitative component.

Findings

Menstruators with disabilities were five times (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 5.5, 95% Confidence Interval 1.8 - 16.5) more likely to use different bathing facilities to others in the household, nearly twice as likely (1.8, 1.1 - 3.1) to miss social activities, and three times (3.0, 1.6 - 5.7) more likely to eat alone during menstruation. Menstrual restrictions were widespread for all, but collecting water and managing menstrual materials was harder for menstruators with disabilities, particularly those requiring caregivers' support. These factors negatively impacted menstruators with disabilities' comfort, safety and hygiene, yet they reported less interference of menstruation on participation.

Interpretation

Negative factors affecting all menstruators disproportionately impact those with disabilities, compounding existing inequalities. Menstruators with disabilities may have reported less interference because they are accustomed to greater participation restrictions than others.

Funding

Australian Government's Water for Women fund and public donations.

SUBMITTER: Wilbur J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8661049 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGirls and women need effective, safe, and affordable menstrual products. Single-use menstrual pads and tampons are regularly provided by agencies among resource-poor populations. Reusable menstrual pads (RMPs: fabric layers sewn together by an enterprise for manufacture of menstrual products) may be an effective alternative.MethodsFor this review (PROSPERO CRD42020179545) we searched databases (inception to November 1, 2020) for quantitative and qualitative studies that reported on leakage, acceptability, or safety of RMPs. Findings were summarised or combined using forest plots (random-effects meta-analysis). Potential costs and environmental savings associated with RMPs were estimated.ResultsA total of 44 studies were eligible (~14,800 participants). Most were conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC, 78%), and 20% in refugee settings. The overall quality of studies was low. RMP uptake in cohort studies ranged from 22-100% (12 studies). One Ugandan trial among schoolgirls found leakage with RMPs was lower (44.4%, n = 72) compared to cloths (78%, n = 111, p<0.001). Self-reported skin-irritation was 23.8% after 3 months among RMP-users in a Ugandan cohort in a refugee setting (n = 267), compared to 72.8% at baseline with disposable pad use. There were no objective reports on infection. Challenges with washing and changing RMP were reported in LMIC studies, due to lack of water, privacy, soap, buckets, and sanitation/drying facilities. Among 69 brands, the average price for an RMP was $8.95 (standard deviation [sd] $5.08; LMIC $2.06, n = 10, high-income countries [HIC] $10.11), with a mean estimated lifetime of 4.3 years (sd 2.3; LMIC 2.9, n = 11; HIC 4.9 years, n = 23). In 5-year cost-estimates, in LMICs, 4-25 RMPs per period would be cheaper (170-417 US$) than 9-25 single-use pads, with waste-savings of ~600-1600 single-use pads. In HICs, 4-25 RMPs would be cheaper (33-245 US$) compared to 20 single-use tampons per period, with waste-savings of ~1300 tampons.ConclusionRMPs are used internationally and are an effective, safe, cheaper, and environmentally friendly option for menstrual product provision by programmes. Good quality studies in this field are needed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Persons with speech, language, and/or voice disabilities (collectively referred to as communication disabilities (CD)) represent 10% of the US population, yet their healthcare outcomes have not been described. Generally, research shows that persons with disabilities have poorer health and healthcare outcomes than their non-disabled peers. OBJECTIVES:To examine the health and healthcare outcomes of persons with CD compared to persons without CD. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study of the 2012 National Health Interview Survey, which contained the first supplemental questions on CD. We compared proportional differences in outcomes; logistic and ordered logistic regression assessed the outcome measures across CD categories, controlling for demographics, non-communication disabilities, and chronic conditions. Findings are weighted to permit national inferences. PARTICIPANTS:Adults (??18 years old) were divided into 4 mutually exclusive groups: people with voice disabilities only; speech/language disabilities only; speech/language and voice disabilities; and people without CD. MAIN MEASURES:Chronic health conditions; self-rated health; access to care; unmet needs for care; healthcare utilization. KEY RESULTS:Adults with CD more frequently had ??1 chronic condition (voice 67.9%, speech/language 68.6%, speech/language and voice 79.9%, no CD 50.1%, p?<?0.001) and reported fair/poor health (voice 19.5%, speech/language 32.5%, speech/language and voice 48.3%, no CD 11.2%, p?<?0.001) compared to those without CD. Adults with CD more frequently utilized healthcare compared to those without CD. However, persons with CD endorsed greater difficulties accessing care than those without CD, including identifying a usual source of care, trouble finding a physician, and delaying or foregoing care (e.g., delayed due to availability of care: voice 26.1%, speech/language 37.2%, speech/language and voice 30.8% no CD 16.1%, p?<?0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Persons with CD are medically complex and experience greater challenges accessing healthcare than persons without CD. Healthcare providers need support and tools to provide equitable care that addresses the medical needs of persons with CD.

Project description:BackgroundLow-income older adults experience disparities in oral health problems, including caries and periodontal disease, that can exacerbate already high levels of chronic and acute health problems. Behavioral interventions have been shown to improve oral health status but are typically administered in institutional rather than community settings. Furthermore, multiple simultaneous interventions at different levels in the locations where people live and work are likely to have more impact and sustainability than single interventions in clinical settings.ObjectiveThis paper outlines a protocol for conducting a bilingual 5-year community-based trial of a bilevel intervention that addresses community norms, beliefs, intentions, and practices to improve oral health hygiene of vulnerable older adults living in publicly subsidized housing. The intervention utilizes (1) a face-to-face counseling approach (adapted motivational interviewing [AMI]) and (2) resident-run oral health campaigns in study buildings.MethodsThe study's modified fractional factorial crossover design randomizes 6 matched buildings into 2 conditions: AMI followed by campaign (AB) and campaign followed by AMI (BA). The total intervention cycle is approximately 18 months in duration. The design compares the 2 interventions alone (T0-T1), and in different sequences (T1-T2), using a self-reported survey and clinical assessment to measure Plaque Score (PS) and Gingival Index (GI) as outcomes. A final timepoint (T3), 6 months post T2, assesses sustainability of each sequence. The intervention is based on the Fishbein integrated model that includes both individual and contextual modifiers, norms and social influence, beliefs, attitudes, efficacy, and intention as predictors of improvements in PS, GI, and oral health quality of life. The cognitive and behavioral domains in the intervention constitute the mechanisms through which the intervention should have a positive effect. They are tailored through the AMI and targeted to building populations through the peer-facilitated oral health campaigns. The sample size is 360, 180 in each condition, with an attrition rate of 25%. The study is funded by National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) and has been reviewed by University of Connecticut and NIDCR institutional review boards and NIDCR's clinical trials review procedures.ResultsWhen compared against each other, the face-to-face intervention is expected to have greater positive effects on clinical outcomes and oral health quality of life through the mediators. When sequences are compared, the results may be similar but affected by different mediators. The arm consisting of the BA is expected to have better sustainability. The protocol's unique features include the comparative effectiveness crossover design; the introduction of new emotion-based mediators; the balancing of fidelity, tailoring, and targeting; and resident engagement in the intervention.ConclusionsIf successful, the evaluated interventions can be scaled up for implementation in other low-income congregate living and recreational settings with older adult collectives.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02419144; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02419144.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/14555.