Assessing the effectiveness of a comprehensive menstrual health intervention program in Ugandan schools (MENISCUS): process evaluation of a pilot intervention study

Background Poor menstrual health and hygiene (MHH) is a globally recognised public health challenge. A pilot study of an MHH intervention was conducted in two secondary schools in Entebbe, Uganda, over 9 months. The intervention included five components delivered by the implementing partner (WoMena Uganda) and the research team: (i) training teachers to implement government guidelines for puberty education, (ii) a drama skit to reduce stigma about menstruation, (iii) training in use of a menstrual kit (including re-usable pads), (iv) guidance on pain relief methods including provision of analgesics and (v) improvements to school water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) facilities. The aim of the process evaluation was to examine implementation, context and possible causal pathways. Methods We collected information on fidelity, dose, reach, acceptability, context and mechanisms of impact using (i) quantitative survey data collected from female and male students in year 2 of secondary school (ages 13–21; 450 at the baseline and 369 at endline); (ii) qualitative data from 40 in-depth interviews with parents, teachers and female students, and four focus group discussions with students, stratified by gender; (iii) data from unannounced visits checking on WASH facilities throughout the study; and (iv) routine data collected as part of the implementation. Quantitative data were used primarily to assess fidelity, dose and reach. Qualitative data were used primarily to assess acceptability, context and possible mechanisms. Results Both schools received all intervention elements that were delivered by the research team and implementing partner. The drama skit, menstrual kit and pain management intervention components were delivered with fidelity. Intervention components that relied on school ownership (puberty education training and WASH improvements) were not fully delivered. Overall, the intervention was acceptable to participants. Multilevel contextual factors including schools’ social and physical environment, and family, cultural and social factors influenced the acceptability of the intervention in the school setting. The intervention components reinforced one another, as suggested in our theoretical framework. Conclusion The intervention was feasible to deliver and acceptable to the schools and students. We propose a full-scale cluster-randomised trial to evaluate the intervention, adding a school-based MHH leadership group to address issues with school ownership. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04064736 . Registered August 22, 2019, retrospectively registered.