IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0277095.html

Wealth-based inequality in the exclusive use of hygienic materials during menstruation among young women in urban India

Author

Listed:
  • Aditya Singh
  • Mahashweta Chakrabarty
  • Shivani Singh
  • Diwakar Mohan
  • Rakesh Chandra
  • Sourav Chowdhury

Abstract

Background: The exclusive use of hygienic materials during menstruation (sanitary napkins, locally made napkins, tampons, and menstrual cups) among urban women in India has been increasing over time. However, little is known about the wealth-based disparity in the exclusive use of hygienic materials during menstruation among these women. This study, therefore, measures wealth-based inequality in the exclusive use of hygienic materials during menstruation among urban women in India. Furthermore, the measured inequality is decomposed to unravel its contributing factors. Data and methods: Using data from the National Family Health Survey-5 (2019–21), we calculated the Erreygers normalized concentration index (CI) for India and each of its states to measure wealth-based inequality in the exclusive use of hygienic materials during menstruation among women in urban India. Further, we decomposed the Erreygers CI to estimate the relative contribution of covariates to wealth-based inequality in the exclusive use of hygienic materials during menstruation. The analysis included 54,561 urban women aged 15–24 from 28 states and eight union territories of India. Results: The Erreygers CI value of 0.302 indicated a pro-rich inequality in the exclusive use of hygienic materials among urban women in India. While all the states and UTs showed pro-rich inequality, the CI varied considerably across the country. Among the bigger states, the inequality was highest in Madhya Pradesh (CI: 0.45), Assam (CI: 0.44), Bihar (CI: 0.41), and West Bengal (CI: 0.37) and the lowest in the south Indian states of Tamil Nadu (CI: 0.10), Andhra Pradesh (CI: 0.15), Telangana (CI: 0.15), and Kerala (CI: 0.20). Erreygers decomposition revealed that wealth-based inequality in women’s education and mass media exposure contributed almost 80% of the wealth-based inequality in the exclusive use of hygienic materials during menstruation among urban women in India. Conclusion: Substantial pro-rich inequality in the exclusive use of hygienic materials suggests that the policies and program initiatives should prioritize reaching out to poor women to increase the overall rate of exclusive use of hygienic materials during menstruation in urban India.

Suggested Citation

  • Aditya Singh & Mahashweta Chakrabarty & Shivani Singh & Diwakar Mohan & Rakesh Chandra & Sourav Chowdhury, 2022. "Wealth-based inequality in the exclusive use of hygienic materials during menstruation among young women in urban India," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(11), pages 1-19, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0277095
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277095
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0277095
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0277095&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0277095?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dhammika Deepani Siriwardhana & Arunasalam Pathmeswaran & Ananda Rajitha Wickremasinghe, 2019. "Socioeconomic inequality and determinants of postnatal home visits made by public health midwives: An analysis of the Sri Lanka Demographic and Health Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-15, April.
    2. Ranjita Ghosh & Arupendra Mozumdar & Aparajita Chattopadhyay & Rajib Acharya, 2021. "Mass media exposure and use of reversible modern contraceptives among married women in India: An analysis of the NFHS 2015–16 data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-23, July.
    3. repec:wbk:wbpubs:6896 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Eddy van Doorslaer & Xander Koolman & Andrew M. Jones, 2004. "Explaining income‐related inequalities in doctor utilisation in Europe," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(7), pages 629-647, July.
    5. Randall P. Ellis & Tianxu Chen & Calvin Luscombe, 2014. "Comparisons of Health Insurance Systems in Developed Countries," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series wp2014-010, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    6. Karuppannan, Annapuranam, 2016. "Ill health experience of women: A gender perspective," Working Papers 379, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eric French & Elaine Kelly & Richard Cookson & Carol Propper & Miqdad Asaria & Rosalind Raine, 2016. "Socio‐Economic Inequalities in Health Care in England," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 37, pages 371-403, September.
    2. Fleurbaey, Marc & Schokkaert, Erik, 2009. "Unfair inequalities in health and health care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 73-90, January.
    3. David Cantarero & Marta Pascual, 2005. "Regional Differences In Health In Spain - An Empirical Analysis," ERSA conference papers ersa05p551, European Regional Science Association.
    4. Erik Schokkaert & Tom Van Ourti & Diana De Graeve & Ann Lecluyse & Carine Van de Voorde, 2010. "Supplemental health insurance and equality of access in Belgium," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 377-395, April.
    5. Tavares, Lara Patrício & Zantomio, Francesca, 2017. "Inequity in healthcare use among older people after 2008: The case of southern European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(10), pages 1063-1071.
    6. Oddvar Kaarboe & Fredrik Carlsen, 2014. "Waiting Times And Socioeconomic Status. Evidence From Norway," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(1), pages 93-107, January.
    7. Johannes Hagen, 2018. "The effects of increasing the normal retirement age on health care utilization and mortality," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 31(1), pages 193-234, January.
    8. Brenna, Elenka, 2025. "Public versus private access in the Italian NHS - The use of propensity score matching to provide more insight on the increasing adoption of voluntary health insurance," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    9. Anell, Anders & Dackehag , Margareta & Dietrichson, Jens, 2016. "Does Risk-Adjusted Payment Influence Primary Care Providers' Decision on Where to Set Up Practices?," Working Papers 2016:24, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    10. Francesco Renna & Vasilios D. Kosteas & Kuchibhotla Dinkar, 2021. "Inequality in health insurance coverage before and after the Affordable Care Act," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 384-402, February.
    11. Spitzer, Sonja & Shaikh, Mujaheed, 2022. "Health misperception and healthcare utilisation among older Europeans," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 22(C).
    12. Hernández-Quevedo, Cristina & Jones, Andrew M. & Rice, Nigel, 2008. "Persistence in health limitations: A European comparative analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 1472-1488, December.
    13. Pulok, Mohammad Habibullah & van Gool, Kees & Hall, Jane, 2020. "Horizontal inequity in the utilisation of healthcare services in Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(11), pages 1263-1271.
    14. Teresa Bago d'Uva & Maarten Lindeboom & Owen O'Donnell & Eddy van Doorslaer, 2011. "Education‐related inequity in healthcare with heterogeneous reporting of health," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 174(3), pages 639-664, July.
    15. Denzil G. Fiebig & Kees van Gool & Jane Hall & Chunzhou Mu, 2021. "Health care use in response to health shocks: Does socio‐economic status matter?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(12), pages 3032-3050, December.
    16. Walter Beckert & Elaine Kelly, 2021. "Divided by choice? For‐profit providers, patient choice and mechanisms of patient sorting in the English National Health Service," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(4), pages 820-839, April.
    17. Zhongliang Zhou & Yu Fang & Zhiying Zhou & Dan Li & Dan Wang & Yanli Li & Li Lu & Jianmin Gao & Gang Chen, 2017. "Assessing Income-Related Health Inequality and Horizontal Inequity in China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 132(1), pages 241-256, May.
    18. Bilger, Marcel & Carrieri, Vincenzo, 2013. "Health in the cities: When the neighborhood matters more than income," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 1-11.
    19. Vincenzo Carrieri & Ansgar Wuebker, 2014. "Does the Letter Matter (and for Everyone)? - Quasi-experimental Evidence on the Eff ects of Home Invitation on Mammography Uptake," Ruhr Economic Papers 0491, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    20. Davillas, Apostolos & Pudney, Stephen, 2020. "Biomarkers, disability and health care demand," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0277095. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.