Skip to main content
. 2016 Mar 2;6(3):e010290. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010290

Table 1.

Characteristics of included Indian studies on Menstrual Hygiene Management published between 2000 and 2015

Variable Values Number (%)
N=138
Type of material Article 127 (92.0)
Report 9 (6.5)
Thesis 2 (1.5)
Year of publication 2000 1 (0.7)
2001–2004 7 (5.1)
2005–2009 24 (17.4)
2010–2014 90 (65.2)
2015 16 (11.6)
Study design Survey 107 (77.5)
Before/after design* 19 (13.8)
Mixed methods 12 (8.7)
Study population Completely adolescent girls 118 (85.5)
Partly adolescent girls 20 (14.5)
Setting Rural 50 (36.2)
Urban 48 (34.8)
Urban and rural 30 (21.7)
Slum 10 (7.3)
Location of recruitment School 82 (59.4)
Community 45 (32.6)
Other† 11 (8.0)
Method of data collection Self-administered 69 (50.0)
Interview by study staff 68 (49.3)
Not applicable 1‡ (0.7)
Time period of study§ Before 2000 5 (3.6)
2000–2004 17 (12.3)
2005–2009 35 (25.4)
2010–2014 81 (58.7)
Region¶ North 27 (19.7)
Central 11 (8.0)
East 19 (13.9)
West 32 (23.4)
South 48 (35.0)
Median sample size (range) 322 (30–5000)

*Two studies with a before/after design had a mixed design (quantitative and qualitative components).

†Clinic 4, Hostel 2, Vocational training centre 2, School and community 2, not reported 1.

‡In this study, girls were given the opportunity to ask questions on MHM, and the contents of questions were analysed.

§Estimated for 59 studies where this was not reported by using the median between last study year and publication year (2 years) for studies where the time of the study was reported (79 studies).

¶North: New Delhi, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand; Central: Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh; East: Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, West Bengal, Meghalaya; West: Gujarat, Maharashtra; South: Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Telangana. One study had a national sample (Anand 2015) and was not included here.15

MHM, Menstrual Hygiene Management.