Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 12, 2026
Fabricating Cotton Analytical Devices
Published on: August 30, 2016
Cost-Minimisation and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Reusable Menstrual Pads Compared to Disposable Pads in a Low-Resource
Amina Suleiman Rajah1, Umar Lawal Bello2, Ahmed Suberu2
1Department of Nursing Science, Bayero University, Kano, Nigeria. asrajah.nur@buk.edu.ng.
Background:
Menstrual hygiene management poses significant economic and environmental challenges, with disposable products contributing to period poverty and plastic waste. Robust economic evaluations comparing reusable menstrual pads to disposable alternatives are lacking, particularly in low-income settings.
Aim:
This study assessed the costs, cost-minimisation outcomes, and cost-benefit implications of reusable menstrual pads compared with disposable pads and examined socio-economic factors associated with perceived economic value and willingness to adopt reusable pads.
Methods:
A cross-sectional analytical study was conducted among 426 women and girls in Kano, Nigeria. A cost-minimisation analysis from the user perspective compared the cost per menstrual cycle managed, assuming equivalent menstrual-cycle coverage for reusable and disposable pads. A cost-benefit analysis incorporated monetised environmental externalities related to avoided menstrual waste. Costs were reported in 2025 Nigerian Naira and United States dollars using an exchange rate of ₦1650 = US$1. Sensitivity analyses assessed uncertainty in key cost and waste-management parameters.
Results:
Reusable menstrual pads were more cost-saving compared with disposable pads under the base-case assumptions. Disposable pads cost ₦1425 per cycle, while reusable pads cost ₦413 per cycle. Over 5 years, total undiscounted costs were ₦85,500 for disposable pads and ₦24,780 for reusable pads, yielding net savings of ₦60,720 per user. Including avoided waste-management costs, the net social benefit of switching to reusable pads was ₦63,609 over 5 years. The mean Likert score for the statement that reusable pads are more economical in the long run was 4.26 (SD 0.78), while the mean Likert score for the statement that upfront cost is a major barrier was 4.29 (SD 0.76). Perceived economic value was significantly associated with income (p = 0.003) and education (p < 0.001).
Conclusion:
Reusable menstrual pads may offer substantial cost savings and additional societal benefits through reduced menstrual waste in low-resource contexts. Programmes promoting reusable pads should address the upfront purchase cost through subsidies, financing models, or targeted distribution.
