Fighting for menstrual equity through period product pantries.

BACKGROUND: Menstruators facing period poverty often struggle with menstrual hygiene and waste management, which can result in harmful short- and long-term health outcomes such as urinary tract infections, yeast infections, and vulvar contact dermatitis. Research indicates that 42% of menstruators in the United States have difficulty affording period products. Traditional methods of distributing period products through social services may unintentionally undermine menstruators' agency, leading to disempowerment and inefficient resource allocation. Period product pantries are a novel approach aimed at addressing period poverty, inequity, and inadequate menstrual health education in the United States. OBJECTIVES: This paper aims to examine the development, organization, and implementation of two distinct period product pantry networks in Ohio and New York. It seeks to compare the advantages and challenges of grassroots versus nonprofit-led models and to provide practical insights for future pantry operators. DESIGN: The study examines two models of period product pantries: a grassroots effort led by three local residents in Ohio and an initiative spearheaded by a nonprofit organization in New York. The design includes a comparative analysis of both models' organization, funding methods, and operational structures. METHODS: The authors gathered data on the construction, operation, and usage of two pantry networks, focusing on factors such as accessibility, community engagement, and sustainability. The study employed a combination of qualitative methods, including interviews with organizers, and a review of organizational documents to analyze the effectiveness and scalability of each model. RESULTS: Both pantry networks increased accessibility to period products in low socioeconomic neighborhoods, which are disproportionately affected by period poverty. The grassroots model, while resource-limited, fostered strong community ties and local engagement. The nonprofit-led model benefited from dedicated staff and a more stable funding structure but faced bureaucratic challenges. Despite their differences, both models demonstrated the potential to empower menstruators by preserving their dignity and autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: Period product pantries represent an innovative and equitable approach to addressing period poverty and inequity. The analysis of the two models offers valuable insights for organizations and individuals interested in establishing similar initiatives. While each model has its unique benefits and challenges, both are effective in empowering menstruators and providing accessible menstrual hygiene products to those in need. REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Fighting for menstrual equity through period product pantriesPeriod product pantries are a new way to help people who can't afford period products and don't have enough education about menstrual health in the U.S. Many people who experience period poverty, or trouble getting products like pads and tampons, also face barriers to staying clean and managing period waste. This can cause health issues like infections. About 42% of people who get periods in the U.S. say they've had trouble paying for these products. Period product pantries are different from older methods of getting free products, like through social services, because they let people get what they need without feeling embarrassed or losing their sense of control. This paper looks at two types of period pantries: one started by three local people in Ohio and another run by a nonprofit group in New York. Both help people in neighborhoods where it's hard to afford period products. The paper talks about how these pantries were set up, how they are funded, and what worked well or didn't. The goal is to show how these pantries can be a good, fair way to help people while giving advice to others who might want to start their own pantries.

Evaluation and Treatment of Vulvodynia: State of the Science.

Vulvodynia affects 7% of American women, yet clinicians often lack awareness of its presentation. It is underdiagnosed and often misdiagnosed as vaginitis. The etiology of vulvodynia remains unknown, making it difficult to identify or develop effective treatment methods. The purpose of this article is to (1) review the presentation and evaluation of vulvodynia, (2) review the research on vulvodynia treatments, and (3) aid the clinician in the selection of vulvodynia treatment methods. The level of evidence to support vulvodynia treatment varies from case series to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Oral desipramine with 5% lidocaine cream, intravaginal diazepam tablets with intravaginal transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS), botulinum toxin type A 50 units, enoxaparin sodium subcutaneous injections, intravaginal TENS (as a single therapy), multimodal physical therapy, overnight 5% lidocaine ointment, and acupuncture had the highest level of evidence with at least one RCT or comparative effectiveness trial. Pre to posttest reduction in vulvar pain and/or dyspareunia in non-RCT studies included studies of gabapentin cream, amitriptyline cream, amitriptyline with baclofen cream, up to 6 weeks' oral itraconazole therapy, multimodal physical therapy, vaginal dilators, electromyography biofeedback, hypnotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, cold knife vestibulectomy, and laser therapy. There is a lack of rigorous RCTs with large sample sizes for the treatment of vulvodynia, rendering it difficult to determine efficacy of most treatment methods. Clinicians will be guided in the selection of best treatments for vulvodynia that have the highest level of evidence and are least invasive.