| Literature DB >> 32183828 |
Hazel Rose Barrett1, Katherine Brown2, Yussif Alhassan3, Els Leye4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite numerous campaigns and interventions to end female genital mutilation (FGM), the practice persists across the world, including the European Union (EU). Previous interventions have focused mainly on awareness raising and legislation aimed at criminalizing the practice. Limited evidence exists on the effectiveness of interventions due in part to the lack of systematic evaluation of projects. This paper presents an evaluation of the REPLACE Approach, which is a new methodology for tackling FGM based on community-based behaviour change and intervention evaluation.Entities:
Keywords: African diaspora; Behaviour change intervention; COM-B; Community readiness to change; Community-based research; Evaluation; Female genital mutilation; REPLACE Approach; Social norm change
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32183828 PMCID: PMC7079414 DOI: 10.1186/s12978-020-0879-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.223
Countries, cities, ethnic groups and partners involved in implementing the REPLACE Approach (2010–2016)
| Country/City | FGM Affected Community | Facilitating Partner | Project |
|---|---|---|---|
| Italy, Palermo | Eritrean and Ethiopian | The World Is Only One Creature (CESIE) | REPLACE2b |
| Netherlands, Amsterdam and Rotterdam | Somali | Federatie Somalische Associaties Nederland (FSAN) | REPLACE1a REPLACE2 |
| Portugal, Lisbon | Guinea Bissauan | Associacao Para O Planeamento Da Familia (APF) | REPLACE2 |
| Spain, Banyoles | Gambian and Senegalese | Gabinet d’Etudis Socials (GES) | REPLACE2 |
| UK, Bristol and London | Somali and Sudanese | FORWARD UK | REPLACE1 REPLACE2 |
aFunded by EC Daphne III Programme: JLS/2008/DAP3/AG/1193-30 CE0118760084
bFunded by EC Daphne III Programme: JUST/2012/DAP/A/3273
Fig. 1The REPLACE Cyclic Framework for Social Norm Transformation with FGM affected communities living in the EU. (Source [19])
Nine Principles of CPAR as identified by Hacker (Source: Adapted from [24] pages 10-14)
1. Acknowledges community as a unit of identity. 2. Builds upon strengths and resources within the community. 3. Facilitates a collaborative, equitable partnership in all phases of research involving an empowering and power-sharing process that attends to social inequalities. 4. Fosters co-learning and capacity building among all partners. 5. Integrates and achieves a balance between knowledge generation and intervention for the mutual benefit of all partners. 6. Focuses on the local relevance of public health problems and on ecological perspectives that attend to the multiple determinants of health. 7. Involves systems development, using a cyclical and iterative process. 8. Disseminates results to all partners and involves them in the wider dissemination of results. 9. Involves a long term process and commitment to sustainability. |
Fig. 2The REPLACE Community Readiness to End FGM Assessment (Source: [19] page 104)
Quotations from participants in focus group discussions illustrating changes in knowledge and attitudes towards FGM following the implementation of REPLACE interventions. (Source: REPLACE fieldwork, 2010–2015)
‘… it came as a surprise to discover that the consequence of this practice [FGM] were very severe, particularly types II and III. We saw in an explicit way [with drawings and photos they had asked the doctor who had conducted the session to show them] and understood the harm that this practice can bring about. For us, the health problems provoked by FGM are enough reason to abandon it.’ (Gambian/Senegalese woman, Spain) ‘I have learnt that the FGM is not harmless as it has negative effects for women, above all as regards health … .this is one of the most important lessons I have learnt and also that this practice does not provide any benefits for women.’ (Gambian/Senegalese woman, Spain) ‘… prior to participation in the activities I had practically never heard about this issue and that anyway I considered that the FGM was a ‘normal’ issue and that it should be carried out. But now, knowing what I now know about this issue, particularly regarding the consequences of the FGM on the woman’s health, I am not in favour of carrying it out.’ (Gambian/Senegalese man, Spain) ‘My journey started years ago but this gave me the skills needed. I was not sure at the start but after coming here I felt empowered to talk. I can give advice and evidence why FGM is harmful …’ (Sudanese woman, UK) ‘Most people in this community think that the Prophet want us to cut our daughters. But this is not true. That Hadith is weak. Allah says in the Koran that we should not do anything that harms us.’ (Guinea Bissau man, Portugal) ‘It is indeed true that FGM is not a requirement of Islam as we were told … I have consulted on it, and answered that the ‘Hadith’ that was said to state cutting a little is OK, is false. ‘… religion does not make this practice mandatory: although mostly we have known it in advance, the information and the data they have provided with, has confirmed our views.’ (Gambian/Senegalese woman, Spain) ‘I liked that they told us about Islam and FGM. They showed clearly that it is not an Islamic practice.’ (Somali woman, Netherlands) ‘I think they should lecture the men about this topic, that it is not an Islamic practice. Often the men are head of the house, especially when it comes to religion. If he convinces his wife or sisters or mother that it is not something from our religion, I think they would stop believing it is a good thing.’ (Somali woman, Netherlands) ‘It was interesting to see that some of the women [female Koranic school teachers] were pro-FGM and changed so much that they are now active against it. That is a great thing.’ (Somali woman, Netherlands) ‘Here in the Netherlands yes, first of all it is not allowed. And people do not want to lose their children and go to jail. I wonder if they would think the same if they were in Somalia. There they have the opportunity to do it, so maybe then they don’t think it is wrong. I don’t know how many have really changed their mind.’ (Somali woman, Netherlands). “I am more confident and I know about the UK law and safeguarding issues …” (Sudanese woman, UK) |
The components of the COM-B Model (adapted from [32])
| Components of COM-B Model | Description of Components |
|---|---|
| Capability | |
| Motivation | |
| Opportunity |
Results of REPLACE Approach Elements 1–3 and the Community Intervention Action implemented. (Source: REPLACE fieldwork, 2013–15)
| FGM Affected Community | Stage of Readiness to End FGM prior to the implementation of the intervention | Main focus of intervention based on community engagement and CPAR | COM-B Assessment | Intervention Activity | Individual and community changes evident following the intervention | Stage of Readiness to End FGM following the implementation of the intervention |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eritrean/Ethiopian Community (Italy) | Providing an opportunity to discuss issues associated with settling in the EU, including legal framework concerning FGM. | Organisation of a set of community sessions to bring community members together and raise awareness of FGM and the legal situation concerning FGM in the EU, as well as issues such as access to healthcare, housing and employment. | Efforts being made to create some community cohesion by organizing coffee mornings. | |||
| Gambian/Senegalese Community (Spain) | The link between gender inequality, poverty and FGM was identified with a need for inter-generational and inter-gender communication concerning FGM. | Organisation of a set of community sessions raising awareness of FGM focusing on the legal situation concerning FGM in the EU, gender equality and human rights. Provision of materials designed to increase ability to hold discussions | ||||
| Guinea Bissauan Community (Portugal) | The link between gender inequality, poverty and FGM was identified with a need for inter-generational and inter-gender communication concerning FGM. | Organisation of a set of community sessions focusing on attitudes towards European culture and FGM including health, religion, the law and gender equality. Provision of materials designed to increase ability to hold discussions | ||||
| Sudanese Community (UK) | Community regarded FGM Types I and II to be acceptable as the health impacts were perceived to be minimal. ‘little sunna’ (FGM Type I/II) believed to be a requirement of Islam. | Organisation of a community event to present sessions on the health consequences of FGM in particular Types I and I and challenging the belief that FGM is required by Islam. Break-out discussions in three languages. | ||||
| Somali Community (Netherlands) | Community identified that many members regarded ‘little sunna’ (FGM Type I/II) as a requirement of Islam and did not regard it as FGM. | Koranic school teachers developed and delivered a Koranic School lesson focusing on challenging the belief that FGM is required by Islam. |
Means and standard deviations for pre and post Likert Measures taken from Somali Community intervention participants living in the Netherlands (Source: REPLACE fieldwork, 2014-2015)
| Likert scale measure | Means and (SDs) pre-intervention | Means and (SDs) post-intervention |
|---|---|---|
| Belief that FGM is required by Islam (Increase is positive for this item) | 4.24 (2.59) | 5.2 (2.55) |
| Perception that FGM is approved of by the community in general (Decrease is positive for this item) | 2.47 (1.66) | 2.4 (1.59) |
| Perception that FGM is approved of by people known well to them (Decrease is positive for this item) | 2.14 (1.61) | 1.87 (1.45) |
NB Data were not provided matched to participants over time so paired sample t-tests could not be carried
Means and standard deviations for pre and post Likert Measures taken from Gambian/Senegalese Community intervention participants living in Spain (Source: REPLACE fieldwork, 2014-2015)
| Likert scale measure | Means and (SDs) pre-intervention | Means and (SDs) post-intervention |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Perception of current state of beliefs on FGM in the general community (Decrease is positive for this item) | 4.38 (1.15) | 4.33 (1.12) |
| 2. Perception of current state of beliefs on FGM amongst those known well to the participant (Decrease is positive for this item) | 4.5 (2.01) | 4.8 (1.19) |
| 3. Confidence in ability to talk to people in the community about FGM (Increase is positive for this item) | 5.6 (2.07) | 5.5 (1.03) |
| 4. Confidence in ability to talk to people known well to the participant about FGM (Increase is positive for this item) | 5.7 (1.95) | 5.0 (0.94) |
| 5. Motivation to talk to people in the community about FGM (Increase is positive for this item) | 5.78 (1.31) | 5.5 (1.31) |
| 6. Motivation to talk to people known well to the participant about FGM (Increase is positive for this item) | 6.25 (0.62) | 5.17 (1.10) |
| 7. Perception of motivation of community in general to talk about FGM (Increase is positive for this item) | 4.88 (1.29) | 5.33 (1.22) |
| 8. Perception of motivation amongst people known well to the participant to talk about FGM (Increase is positive for this item) | 5.0 (1.25) | 5.33 (0.38) |