18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The persistent power of stigma: A critical review of policy initiatives to break the menstrual silence and advance menstrual literacy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Menstruation is shrouded in stigma and shame—that is the common refrain in burgeoning initiatives on menstrual health and hygiene. Public policies alone cannot undo stigma and enact social change, but they do interact with social norms. They can reflect and adopt stigmatizing attitudes and, as a result, institutionalize, formalize, and legitimize stigma; or they can actively challenge and denounce it and mitigate existing discrimination. Against this background, we explored whether and how policies on menstrual health and hygiene address menstrual stigma and advance menstrual literacy based on an analysis of 34 policy documents and 85 in-depth interviews with policy-makers and advocates in four countries: India, Kenya, Senegal, and the United States. We found that policies recognized menstrual stigma and set out to break the silence surrounding menstruation and advance menstrual education, but they did not contribute to dismantling menstrual stigma. Policy-makers seemed constrained by the very stigma they sought to tackle, resulting in hesitancy and missed opportunities. Policies raised awareness of menstruation, often with great noise, but they simultaneously called for hiding and concealing any actual, visible signs of menstruation and its embodied messiness. Educational initiatives mostly promoted bodily management and control, rather than agency and autonomy. As a result, policies might have succeeded in breaking the silence around menstruation, but stigma cannot be broken as easily. We first need to recognize its (invisible) power and its impacts in all spheres of life in order to actively challenge, dismantle, and redefine it.

          Related collections

          Most cited references81

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

            Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.

              Standards for reporting exist for many types of quantitative research, but currently none exist for the broad spectrum of qualitative research. The purpose of the present study was to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research while preserving the requisite flexibility to accommodate various paradigms, approaches, and methods.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Formal analysisRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLOS Glob Public Health
                PLOS Glob Public Health
                plos
                PLOS Global Public Health
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                2767-3375
                14 July 2022
                2022
                : 2
                : 7
                : e0000070
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Institute for the Study of Human Rights, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America
                [2 ] Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America
                [3 ] Department of Legal Studies, Central European University, Vienna, Austria
                University of Essex, UNITED KINGDOM
                Author notes

                The authors declare no competing interests.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7311-1607
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5878-4387
                Article
                PGPH-D-21-00632
                10.1371/journal.pgph.0000070
                10021325
                36962272
                4671f1cd-099b-4a56-a999-4e4589a475eb
                © 2022 Olson et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 7 September 2021
                : 31 May 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Pages: 23
                Funding
                Funded by: United Nations Office for Project Services
                Award ID: GSA/WSSCC/WP01/2019/66
                Award Recipient :
                ITW received a grant by the United Nations Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council / the United Nations Office for Project Services under Grant number GSA/WSSCC/WP01/2019/66 which supported this work. ITW and PSK received salary support through the grant, while NA, MMO and LR received student stipends. The funder provided initial, minor input to the study design and suggested some interview partners, but played no role in data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Hygiene
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Education and Awareness
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Policy
                People and Places
                Geographical Locations
                Asia
                India
                Social Sciences
                Political Science
                Public Policy
                People and Places
                Geographical Locations
                Africa
                Kenya
                People and Places
                Geographical Locations
                Africa
                Senegal
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Education
                Schools
                Custom metadata
                The study is based on reviewing policy documents and conducting in-depth qualitative interviews. The policy documents are publicly available (online) and listed in the Supporting Information. As for the in-depth interviews, we cannot make the transcripts or transcript excerpts publicly available as our IRB protocol requires them only to be available to the research team. Even if transcripts are anonymized, making transcripts available would easily allow for the identification of interview participants based on the context and the small size of the menstrual policy community. In order to comply with our ethical clearance and to protect interviewees, we cannot make the data publicly available. Given our ethical clearance protocols in three countries, we cannot make the data available to other researchers as the consent forms explain to study participants that their data will only be available to the investigator and the study staff. We cannot retroactively change how we explained the study to research participants. The consent forms do not make any distinction between transcripts and transcript excerpts.

                Comments

                Comment on this article