Measurement in the study of menstrual health and hygiene: A systematic review and audit

Abstract

Background. The lack of established measurement tools in the study of menstrual health and hygiene has been identified as a significant limitation of quantitative studies to date. However, there has been limited exploration of existing measurement to identify avenues for improvement. Methods. We undertook two linked systematic reviews of (1) trials of menstrual health interventions and their nested studies in low- and middle-income countries, (2) studies developing or validating measures of menstrual experiences from any location. Systematic searching was undertaken in 12 databases, together with handsearching. We iteratively grouped and audited concepts measured across included studies and extracted and compared measures of each concept.Results. A total of 23 trials, 9 nested studies and 22 measure development studies were included. Trials measured a range of outcomes including menstrual knowledge, attitudes, and practices, school absenteeism, and health. Most measure validation studies focused on assessing attitudes towards menstruation, while a group of five studies assessed the accuracy of women’s recall of their menstrual characteristics such as timing and cycle length. Measures of menstrual knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and restrictions were inconsistent and frequently overlapped. No two studies measured the same menstrual or hygiene practices, with 44 different practices assessed. This audit provides a summary of current measures and extant efforts to pilot or test their performance. Conclusions. Inconsistencies in both the definition and operationalisation of concepts measured in menstrual health and hygiene research should be addressed. To improve measurement, authors should clearly define the constructs they aim to measure and outline how these were operationalised for measurement. Results of this audit indicate the need for the development and validation of new measures, and the evaluation of the performance of existing measures across contexts. In particular, the definition and measurement of menstrual practices, knowledge, attitudes, norms and restrictions should be addressed.Review protocol registration: CRD42018089884

Qualitative study exploring the barriers to menstrual hygiene management faced by adolescents and young people with a disability, and their carers in the Kavrepalanchok district, Nepal

“…Evidence about how a lack of MHM negatively impacts gender equality is growing [1,18,19]. However, there is a consistent blind spot on disability, even though 15% of the world's population have a disability, and 80% of people with disabilities live in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) [20].…”

School and work absenteeism due to menstruation in three West African countries: findings from PMA2020 surveys

“…However, to date there are no established indicators for monitoring menstrual health and the inadequacy of measures for core menstrual health constructs has frequently been highlighted as a priority research gap. [25][26][27][28] The construction of indicators and questions used in recent national monitoring efforts including MICS and the Performance Monitoring and Accountability (PMA2020) survey data used in this study present opportunities to interrogate the performance of measures being implemented to identify strengths and limitations and recommend improvements.…”

Qualitative study exploring the barriers to menstrual hygiene management faced by adolescents and young people with a disability, and their carers in the Kavrepalanchok district, Nepal 

“…Evidence about how a lack of MHM negatively impacts gender equality is growing, but there is a consistent blind spot on disability (1,18,19), even though 15% of the world's population have a disability and 80% of people with disabilities live in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs ) (20). Where studies do exist, they focus on a speci c impairment group such as intellectual, visual or mobility instead of gaining a holistic view of the barriers faced by people with different impairments (21)(22)(23).…”