Menstrual product choice and uptake among young women in Zimbabwe: a pilot study.
Adolescents
Community-based interventions
Menstrual health
Youth
Journal
Pilot and feasibility studies
ISSN: 2055-5784
Titre abrégé: Pilot Feasibility Stud
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101676536
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Nov 2020
23 Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
08
09
2020
accepted:
16
11
2020
entrez:
9
12
2020
pubmed:
10
12
2020
medline:
10
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Menstrual health and hygiene (MHH) is a human rights issue; yet, it remains a challenge for many, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). MHH includes the socio-political, psychosocial, and environmental factors that impact women's menstrual experiences. High proportions of girls and women in LMICs have inadequate MHH due to limited access to menstrual knowledge, products, and stigma reinforcing harmful myths and taboos. The aim of this pilot was to inform the design of an MHH sub-study and the implementation and scale-up of an MHH intervention incorporated into a community-based cluster-randomized trial of integrated sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services for youth in Zimbabwe. The objectives were to investigate (1) uptake of a novel MHH intervention, (2) menstrual product preference, and (3) the factors that informed uptake and product choice among young women. Female participants aged 16-24 years old attending the community-based SRH services between April and July 2019 were offered the MHH intervention, which included either a menstrual cup or reusable pads, analgesia, and MHH education. Descriptive statistics were used to quantitatively assess uptake and product choice. Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with participants and the intervention team were used to investigate the factors that influenced uptake and product choice. Of the 1732 eligible participants, 1414 (81.6%) took up the MHH intervention at first visit. Uptake differed by age group with 84.6% of younger women (16-19 years old) compared to 79.0% of older women (20-24 years old) taking up the intervention. There was higher uptake of reusable pads (88.0%) than menstrual cups (12.0%). Qualitative data highlighted that internal factors, such as intervention delivery, influenced uptake. Participants noted the importance of access to free menstrual products, analgesics, and MHH education in a youth-friendly environment. External factors such as sociocultural factors informed product choice. Barriers to cup uptake included fears that the cup would compromise young women's virginity. Pilot findings were used to improve the MHH intervention design and implementation as follows: (1) cup ambassadors to improve cup promotion, sensitization, and uptake; (2) use of smaller softer cups; and (3) education for community members including caregivers and partners. Registry: Clinicaltrials.gov Registration Number: NCT03719521 Registration Date: 25 October 2018.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Menstrual health and hygiene (MHH) is a human rights issue; yet, it remains a challenge for many, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). MHH includes the socio-political, psychosocial, and environmental factors that impact women's menstrual experiences. High proportions of girls and women in LMICs have inadequate MHH due to limited access to menstrual knowledge, products, and stigma reinforcing harmful myths and taboos. The aim of this pilot was to inform the design of an MHH sub-study and the implementation and scale-up of an MHH intervention incorporated into a community-based cluster-randomized trial of integrated sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services for youth in Zimbabwe. The objectives were to investigate (1) uptake of a novel MHH intervention, (2) menstrual product preference, and (3) the factors that informed uptake and product choice among young women.
METHODS
METHODS
Female participants aged 16-24 years old attending the community-based SRH services between April and July 2019 were offered the MHH intervention, which included either a menstrual cup or reusable pads, analgesia, and MHH education. Descriptive statistics were used to quantitatively assess uptake and product choice. Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with participants and the intervention team were used to investigate the factors that influenced uptake and product choice.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the 1732 eligible participants, 1414 (81.6%) took up the MHH intervention at first visit. Uptake differed by age group with 84.6% of younger women (16-19 years old) compared to 79.0% of older women (20-24 years old) taking up the intervention. There was higher uptake of reusable pads (88.0%) than menstrual cups (12.0%). Qualitative data highlighted that internal factors, such as intervention delivery, influenced uptake. Participants noted the importance of access to free menstrual products, analgesics, and MHH education in a youth-friendly environment. External factors such as sociocultural factors informed product choice. Barriers to cup uptake included fears that the cup would compromise young women's virginity.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Pilot findings were used to improve the MHH intervention design and implementation as follows: (1) cup ambassadors to improve cup promotion, sensitization, and uptake; (2) use of smaller softer cups; and (3) education for community members including caregivers and partners.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Registry: Clinicaltrials.gov Registration Number: NCT03719521 Registration Date: 25 October 2018.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33292659
doi: 10.1186/s40814-020-00728-5
pii: 10.1186/s40814-020-00728-5
pmc: PMC7681965
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03719521']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
182Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/P011268/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R010161/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : FIC NIH HHS
ID : D43 TW009539
Pays : United States
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 206316/Z/17/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Lancet. 2017 Aug 26;390(10097):845-846
pubmed: 28850036
J Glob Health. 2020 Jun;10(1):010323
pubmed: 32257146
Am J Public Health. 2015 Jul;105(7):1302-11
pubmed: 25973831
PLoS Med. 2016 Feb 23;13(2):e1001962
pubmed: 26908274
BMJ. 2008 Sep 29;337:a1655
pubmed: 18824488
Int J Equity Health. 2016 Jun 06;15:86
pubmed: 27268416
Health Psychol Rev. 2016 Dec;10(4):425-446
pubmed: 27535821
Lancet Public Health. 2019 Aug;4(8):e361-e362
pubmed: 31324420
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jan 26;17(1):88
pubmed: 28126032
BMJ Open. 2016 Dec 30;6(12):e012596
pubmed: 28039290
Int J Womens Health. 2018 Apr 10;10:169-186
pubmed: 29692636
Contraception. 2009 Jun;79(6):463-8
pubmed: 19442783
Lancet Public Health. 2019 Aug;4(8):e376-e393
pubmed: 31324419
Glob Health Sci Pract. 2015 Mar 05;3(1):135-7
pubmed: 25745127
Reprod Health. 2017 Mar 1;14(1):30
pubmed: 28249610
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 10;11(2):e0146985
pubmed: 26862750
Jamba. 2016 Jan 13;8(2):204
pubmed: 29955312
PLoS Med. 2019 May 16;16(5):e1002803
pubmed: 31095568
Cult Health Sex. 2020 Mar 2;:1-20
pubmed: 32116149
PLoS One. 2020 Mar 3;15(3):e0229871
pubmed: 32126117
Public Health Rep. 2013 Sep-Oct;128(5):399-401
pubmed: 23997288
Glob Health Action. 2016 Dec 08;9:33032
pubmed: 27938648
BMC Public Health. 2019 May 14;19(1):565
pubmed: 31088432