4.6 Article

Reusable sanitary napkins-time to revisit

Journal

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 44, Issue 2, Pages 356-362

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdaa192

Keywords

menstruation; menstrual health; menstrual health management; menstrual hygiene; reusable sanitary napkins

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assessed the knowledge, attitude, and practices of women regarding menstrual hygiene and found that reusable sanitary pads are an effective and environmentally friendly alternative to disposable napkins.
Background To assess knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) of women regarding menstrual hygiene and to evaluate the use of reusable sanitary napkins as an alternative to disposable sanitary napkins. Methods A community-based cross-sectional study was done in two phases. In the first phase, 50 married women attending Gynecology OPD were asked to use reusable sanitary napkins for 2 months. A pre- and post-usage vaginal swab testing was done to rule out genital infection. This study was extended in the second phase to another 534 women after confirming that reusable sanitary napkins do not cause genital infection and are acceptable. KAP analysis regarding menstrual hygiene was done for all women. Results In phase 1 of the study, the microbiological evaluation revealed no pathological organisms on vaginal swab culture after 2 months of usage. KAP analysis of 584 women revealed that only 26% women had awareness about menstruation before attaining menarche; in 51.88%, the primary source of information was their mother; 76.54% women in the study used disposable sanitary pads of which 15% were disposing of them unhygienically; 80.49% women found the reusable napkins comfortable and easy to use and 83.6% women confirmed recommending these napkins to others. Conclusion Reusable sanitary pads are an effective, environment friendly, and cost-effective alternative to disposable napkins.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available