Cited by 19Menstrual Health and DisordersChild Nutrition and Water AccessGender Studies and Social Issues

What can existing data on water and sanitation tell us about menstrual hygiene management?

Libbet C. Loughnan, Libbet C. Loughnan, Rob Bain, Rob Bain, Rosemary Rop, Rosemary Rop, Marni Sommer, Marni Sommer, Tom Slaymaker, Tom Slaymaker·2016·Waterlines

Abstract

Half of the global population menstruate as part of their life cycle. This involves water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) needs that are often overlooked. Experience from the Millennium Development Goals shows that states focus on targets that are measured globally. Data and indicators on menstrual hygiene management (MHM) for women and girls can have a positive impact on raising awareness, national policy making, and in finding sustainable WASH sector solutions. With this paper, we explore the possible use of Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation estimates for representing women and girls’ unique WASH experience, through a focus on MHM. We reviewed definitions of MHM alongside indicators monitored by the JMP and calculated estimates for 18 case-study low- and middle-income countries. Consultation with a broad range of experts identified open defecation and handwashing indicators as the best proxy indicators for inadequate MHM. Globally around half a billion women (13 per cent) defecate in the open and likely lack privacy for MHM. Data on handwashing suggest that a lack of cleansing materials is a particular challenge for MHM. In six of 10 study countries with data, over three-quarters of women lacked handwashing facilities with water and soap. Further research is needed to establish the validity of various aspects of these proxies and to gain greater understanding of the principal WASH-related challenges and barriers faced by women. Nevertheless, it seems clear that interventions among communities with highest open defecation rates and lowest handwashing levels are needed to address barriers to MHM.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3362/1756-3488.2016.019

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Libbet C. Loughnan, L. C. L., Rob Bain, R. B., Rosemary Rop, R. R., Marni Sommer, M. S., & Tom Slaymaker, T. S.
Venue
Waterlines
Published
2016-07-01
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
228-244
ISSN
  • 0262-8104 (ISSN-L)
  • 1756-3488
OpenAlex
W2505199207
Cited by
19
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4
FWCI
1.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Waterlines (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Menstrual Health and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Child Nutrition and Water Access
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Studies and Social Issues
Keywords
menstrual hygiene management, women and girls, open defecation, hand washing, Joint Monitoring Programme, proxy indicators, low- and middle-income countries, sanitation, water supply, menstrual health

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review