Advertisement

Global Review of Evidence on FGM

  • Ngianga-Bakwin Kandala
  • Paul Nzinga Komba
Chapter

Abstract

The global evidence that has led to the imposition of the ban on FGM has been subject to many studies. All of these studies have largely been descriptive and over-interpretative. Besides, there are conflicting reports of worldwide decrease in the prevalence of FGM (World Health Organization 2008; World Health Organization 2010; Berg and Denison 2012; Gupta 2013; Yoder et al. 2013; Shell-Duncan et al. 2016; UNICEF 2016). In some countries, this prevalence was reported to have dropped by more than 50% (Gupta 2013). The main problem with such studies is that they excessively rely on cross-sectional data evaluating the prevalence of FGM at a particular time point, which hides variations at the regional and sub-national level in respect of the issue of increase or decline in prevalence of FGM. The conflicting evidence in terms of such decrease or increase in prevalence portends grave danger to the realization of zero-tolerance being the articulated resolution of the 2012 UN General Assembly (United Nations 2012). To overcome this problem we need robust analytical evidence on the actual burden of FGM/C using more advanced statistical techniques in terms of spatial analysis of the phenomenon and pointing out hot spots of the phenomenon.

References

  1. Agyei-Mensah, S., & Aikins, A. D.-G. (2010). Epidemiological transition and the double burden of disease in Accra, Ghana. Journal of Urban Health, 87(5), 879–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajiye, S. (2014). Achievements of millennium development goals in Nigeria: A critical examination. International Affairs and Global Strategy, 25, 24–36.Google Scholar
  3. Ako, M. A., & Akweongo, P. (2009). The limited effectiveness of legislation against female genital mutilation and the role of community beliefs in Upper East Region, Ghana. Reproductive Health Matters, 17(34), 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Babalola, S., Brasington, A., Agbasimalo, A., Helland, A., Nwanguma, E., & Onah, N. (2006). Impact of a communication programme on female genital cutting in eastern Nigeria. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 11(10), 1594–1603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banks, E., Meirick, O., Farley, T., Akande, O., Bathija, H., & Ali, M. (2006). Female genital mutilation and obstetric outcome: WHO collaborative prospective study in six African countries. The Lancet, 367(9525), 1835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg, R., Odgaard-Jensen, J., Fretheim, A., Underland, V., & Vist, G. (2014). An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the obstetric consequences of female genital mutilation/cutting. Obstetrics and Gynecology International, 2014, 542859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg, R. C., & Denison, E. (2012). Interventions to reduce the prevalence of female genital mutilation/cutting in African countries. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 8(9).Google Scholar
  8. Boutayeb, A. (2006). The double burden of communicable and non-communicable diseases in developing countries. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 100(3), 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chege, J., Igras, S., Askew, I., & Muteshi, J. K. (2004). Testing the effectiveness of integrating community-based approaches for encouraging abandonment of female genital cutting into CARE’s reproductive health programs in Ethiopia and Kenya. Washington, DC: Population Council.Google Scholar
  10. Davies, R. B. (1994). From cross-sectional to longitudinal analysis. In Analyzing social & political change: A casebook of methods (pp. 20–40).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dawkins, R. (1978). In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioral ecology: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Demographic Health Survey. (1991). Health survey 1989/1990: Department of Statistics, Ministry of Economic and National Planning, Khartoum, Sudan. Columbia, MD: Institute for Resource Development/Macro International, Inc.Google Scholar
  13. DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7(3), 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diop, N. J., & Askew, I. (2009). The effectiveness of a community-based education program on abandoning female genital mutilation/cutting in Senegal. Studies in Family Planning, 40(4), 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Easton, P., Miles, R., & Monkman, K. (2002). Final report on the evaluation of the Tostan/IEP village empowerment program pilot project in the Republic of Mali. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.Google Scholar
  16. El-Zanaty, F. H., Sayed, H. A. A., Zaky, H. H. M., & Way, A. A. (1996). Egypt demographic and health survey 1992. Cairo, Egypt: National Population Council/Egypt and Macro International.Google Scholar
  17. Ezejimofor, M. C., Chen, Y. F., Kandala, N. B., Ezeabasili, A. C., Stranges, S., & Uthman, O. A. (2016). Stroke survivors in low-and middle-income countries: A meta-analysis of prevalence and secular trends. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 364, 68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Faith, O., & People, O. (1998). Study of the effectiveness of training Malian social and health agents in female genital cutting issues and in educating their clients.Google Scholar
  19. Gupta, G. R. (2013). Female genital mutilation/cutting: A statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change. Reproductive Health Matters, 21(42), 184–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Higgins, J., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses [journal article as teaching resource, deposited by John Flynn]. British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howard, J. A., & Gibson, M. A. (2017). Frequency-dependent female genital cutting behaviour confers evolutionary fitness benefits. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1, 0049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson, E. F., Akweongo, P., Sakeah, E., Hodgson, A., Asuru, R., & Phillips, F. (2003). Inconsistent reporting of female genital cutting status in northern Ghana: Explanatory factors and analytical consequences. Studies in Family Planning, 34(3), 200–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnsdotter, S., & Essén, B. (2016). Cultural change after migration: Circumcision of girls in Western migrant communities. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 32, 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karmaker, B., Kandala, N. B., Chung, D., & Clarke, A. (2011). Factors associated with female genital mutilation in Burkina Faso and its policy implications. International Journal for Equity in Health, 10(1), 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lesko, C. R., Cole, S. R., Zinski, A., Poole, C., & Mugavero, M. J. (2013). A systematic review and meta-regression of temporal trends in adult CD4+ cell count at presentation to HIV care, 1992–2011. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 57(7), 1027–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leye, E., Mergaert, L., Arnaut, C., & O’Brien, G. S. (2014). Towards a better estimation of prevalence of female genital mutilation in the European Union: interpreting existing evidence in all EU Member States. Genus, 70(1), 99–121.Google Scholar
  27. Macfarlane, A. J., & Dorkenoo, E. (2014). Female genital mutilation in England and Wales: Updated statistical estimates of the numbers of affected women living in England and Wales and girls at risk Interim report on provisional estimates. London: City University London.Google Scholar
  28. Macfarlane, A. J., & Dorkenoo, E. (2015). Prevalence of female genital mutilation in England and Wales: National and local estimates. London: City University London in association with Equality Now.Google Scholar
  29. Mberu, B. U., & Pongou, R. (2010). Nigeria: Multiple forms of mobility in Africa’s demographic giant. Migration Information Source.Google Scholar
  30. Meirik, O., Banks, E., Farley, T., Akande, O., Bathija, H., & Ali, M. (2014). Female genital mutilation and obstetric outcomes: flawed systematic review and meta-analysis does not accurately reflect the available evidence. Obstetrics and Gynecology International, 2014, 205230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller, J. J. (1978). The inverse of the Freeman–Tukey double arcsine transformation. The American Statistician, 32(4), 138–138.Google Scholar
  32. Mounir, G. M., Mahdy, N. H., & Fatohy, I. M. (2002). Impact of health education program about reproductive health on knowledge and attitude of female Alexandria University students. The Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association, 78(5–6), 433–466.Google Scholar
  33. Mpinga, E. K., Macias, A., Hasselgard-Rowe, J., Kandala, N. B., Félicien, T. K., Verloo, H., et al. (2016). Female genital mutilation: a systematic review of research on its economic and social impacts across four decades. Global Health Action, 9, 31489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nettle, D., Gibson, M. A., Lawso, D. W., & Sear, R. (2013). Human behavioral ecology: current research and future prospects. Behavioral Ecology, 24(5), 1031–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Serour, G. (2013). Medicalization of female genital mutilation/cutting. African Journal of Urology, 19(3), 145–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shell-Duncan, B., Naik, R., & Feldman-Jacobs, C. (2016). A State-of-art synthesis of female genital mutilation/cutting: What do we know now? Evidence to end FGM/C: Research to help women thrive (pp. 1–36). New York: Population Council.Google Scholar
  37. Stroup, D. F., et al. (2000). Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. JAMA, 283(15), 2008–2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. UNICEF. (2016). Female genital mutilation/cutting: A global concern (pp. 1–4). New York: UNICEF.Google Scholar
  39. United Nations. (2012). Third committee approves draft resolution aimed at intensifying global effort to eliminate female genital mutilation. Retrieved February 3, 2017.Google Scholar
  40. World Health Organization. (2008). Eliminating female genital mutilation: An interagency statement–OHCHR, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  41. World Health Organization. (2010). Global strategy to stop health-care providers from performing female genital mutilation: UNAIDS, UNDP, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO, FIGO, ICN, IOM, MWIA, WCPT, WMA. Geneva: WHO. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2010/WHO_RHR_10.9_eng.pdf
  42. World Health Organization. (2011). An update on WHO’s work on female genital mutilation (FGM) progress report.Google Scholar
  43. World Health Organization. (2012). Understanding and addressing violence against women: Intimate partner violence. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  44. World Health Organization. (2016). [Factsheets] Female genital mutilation. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets
  45. Yoder, P. S., Wang, S., & Johansen, E. (2013). Estimates of female genital mutilation/cutting in 27 African countries and Yemen. Studies in Family Planning, 44(2), 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ngianga-Bakwin Kandala
    • 1
  • Paul Nzinga Komba
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics Physics and Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and EnvironmentNorthumbria UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  2. 2.Wolfson CollegeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations