ReviewBMJ public health2025
Gender, self-care and toxic exposures: a narrative review of personal care product use and health equity implications.
Review in BMJ public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Equity gaps in neglected tropical disease research in Malaysia: a systematic review, 2014-2024.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- From feminine hygiene to intimate cosmetics: why language matters for vulvovaginal product exposures and regulation.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Personal care products (PCPs) are widely used across populations, yet their composition includes a range of hazardous chemicals that pose risks to human health and the environment. Emerging evidence highlights how PCP-related exposures are not evenly distributed, but shaped by intersecting forces of gender, race and social inequality. Despite being framed as tools for empowerment and wellness, PCPs may contribute to disproportionate toxic exposures, particularly for women and girls. Objective: This narrative review critically examines the environmental health implications of gendered self-care practices through the lens of PCP use. It synthesises current evidence on chemical exposures, identifies high-risk subgroups, explores mechanisms of harm and outlines implications for regulation, clinical practice and environmental health literacy. Methods: Drawing on interdisciplinary peer-reviewed literature published between 2000 and 2025, the review focuses on endocrine-disrupting chemicals, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, volatile organic compounds, heavy metals and microparticles and nanoparticles commonly found in PCPs. Particular attention is given to vulnerable populations, including beauty salon workers, pregnant individuals, adolescents, women of colour and infants. Findings: PCP use results in chronic low-level exposure to multiple hazardous compounds via dermal, inhalation and mucosal routes. These exposures have been linked to adverse reproductive, developmental and metabolic outcomes, increasing the risks of non-communicable diseases like cancer and obesity and possibly affecting infertility rates. Early evidence shows that interventions such as product substitution can yield rapid reductions in internal toxicant levels. However, individual behaviour change alone is insufficient to address systemic disparities in exposure risk. Conclusions: Self-care must be reframed as a public health and environmental justice issue. Stronger regulatory oversight, clinician education and population-level environmental health literacy are urgently needed to reduce harmful exposures. Equitable self-care should prioritise not only personal choice, but also structural accountability and collective safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.