| Literature DB >> 32393248 |
Ronan Van Rossem1, Dominique Meekers2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Female genital mutilation (FGM) has been a longstanding tradition in Egypt and until recently the practice was quasi-universal. Nevertheless, there are indications that the practice has been losing support and that fewer girls are getting cut. This study analyzes the prevalence of FGM in different birth cohorts, to test whether the prevalence declined over time. The study also examines whether such a decline is occurring in all segments of society or whether it is limited mostly to certain more modernized segments of society.Entities:
Keywords: Egypt; Empowerment; Female genital mutilation; Reproductive health; women’s status
Year: 2020 PMID: 32393248 PMCID: PMC7216476 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-020-00954-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Womens Health ISSN: 1472-6874 Impact factor: 2.809
Descriptive statistics, by EDHS wave
| EDHS wave | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 2008 | 2014 | Total | |
| Weighted N | 20,851 | 18,164 | 23,491 | 62,506 |
| Cohort | *** | |||
| 1987–1990 | 17.6% | 10.0% | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 1991–1995 | 25.2% | 21.9% | 5.1% | 16.7% |
| 1996–2000 | 29.3% | 26.0% | 19.7% | 24.7% |
| 2001–2005 | 27.8% | 27.7% | 24.3% | 26.5% |
| 2006–2010 | 0.0% | 14.5% | 28.8% | 15.0% |
| 2011–2014 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 22.2% | 8.3% |
| Region | *** | |||
| Urban governorates | 14.6% | 15.8% | 11.5% | 13.8% |
| Urban LE | 9.7% | 10.8% | 10.1% | 10.1% |
| Rural LE | 31.0% | 32.5% | 36.1% | 33.4% |
| Urban UE | 12.8% | 10.9% | 11.4% | 11.7% |
| Rural UE | 30.6% | 28.4% | 30.1% | 29.8% |
| Frontier governorates | 1.3% | 1.5% | 1.0% | 1.2% |
| Mother’s education | *** | |||
| No education | 39.7% | 36.7% | 26.7% | 33.9% |
| Incomplete primary | 11.7% | 9.7% | 6.8% | 9.3% |
| Complete primary | 4.2% | 4.1% | 4.6% | 4.3% |
| Incomplete secondary | 9.1% | 10.6% | 12.4% | 10.8% |
| Complete secondary | 26.7% | 29.8% | 37.4% | 31.6% |
| Higher | 8.6% | 9.2% | 12.1% | 10.1% |
| Mother’s occupation | *** | |||
| Not working | 76.6% | 82.8% | 83.3% | 80.9% |
| Professional, Technical, Managerial. | 7.6% | 7.4% | 7.6% | 7.5% |
| Clerical | 2.5% | 1.7% | 1.5% | 1.9% |
| Sales | 1.8% | 0.9% | 2.0% | 1.6% |
| Agriculture-self employed | 4.0% | 0.6% | 1.1% | 1.9% |
| Agriculture-employee | 3.4% | 2.5% | 1.9% | 2.6% |
| Services | 2.1% | 2.4% | 1.5% | 1.9% |
| Skilled manual | 1.1% | 0.7% | 1.0% | 0.9% |
| Unskilled manual | 0.9% | 1.1% | 0.2% | 0.7% |
| Don’t know | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Mother’s religion | *** | |||
| Muslim | 95.0% | 95.8% | 96.5% | 95.8% |
| Christian | 5.0% | 4.2% | 3.4% | 4.1% |
| Father’s education | *** | |||
| No education | 25.2% | 24.2% | 18.3% | 22.3% |
| Primary | 20.9% | 18.6% | 15.0% | 18.0% |
| Secondary | 39.5% | 42.9% | 51.8% | 45.1% |
| Higher | 14.5% | 14.3% | 14.9% | 14.6% |
| Father’s occupation | *** | |||
| Not working | 3.4% | 3.2% | 2.3% | 3.0% |
| Professional, Technical, Managerial. | 22.9% | 24.0% | 22.0% | 22.9% |
| Clerical | 5.7% | 4.5% | 4.6% | 4.9% |
| Sales | 3.4% | 2.2% | 4.8% | 3.6% |
| Agriculture-self employed | 9.8% | 7.7% | 5.9% | 7.7% |
| Agriculture-employee | 8.2% | 10.7% | 8.7% | 9.1% |
| Services | 11.6% | 14.2% | 12.1% | 12.5% |
| Skilled manual | 24.8% | 26.1% | 30.9% | 27.5% |
| Unskilled manual | 9.3% | 6.9% | 8.3% | 8.2% |
| Don’t know | 0.9% | 0.5% | 0.4% | 0.6% |
Significance: *: p < 0.050, **: p < 0.010, ***: p < 0.001
Fig. 1Estimated proportions of women who experienced FGM, by age and birth cohort
Fig. 2Estimated hazards of FGM, by age and birth cohort
Fig. 3Estimated changes in the hazard for FGM, Weibull distribution, by birth cohort (1987 = 1), and with and without controlling for mother and mother’s partner characteristics
Weibull proportional hazard survival analysis results for age at FGM
| (1) | (2) | |
|---|---|---|
| Year of birth | −0.090*** (0.009) | −0.095*** (0.009) |
| (Year of birth)2 | 0.002** (0.001) | 0.002*** (0.001) |
| Region of residence (ref: Urban governorates) | ||
| Urban LE | 0.165* (0.067) | |
| Rural LE | 1.178*** (0.055) | |
| Urban UE | 2.495*** (0.068) | |
| Rural UE | 2.919*** (0.063) | |
| Frontier governorates | 0.391*** (0.093) | |
| Mother’s education (ref: No education) | ||
| Incomplete primary | −0.069 (0.042) | |
| Complete primary | −0.039 (0.067) | |
| Incomplete secondary | 0.131* (0.052) | |
| Complete secondary | −1.021*** (0.051) | |
| Higher | −2.337*** (0.113) | |
| Mother’s religion (ref: Muslim) | ||
| Christian | −2.056*** (0.107) | |
| Mother’s occupation (ref: Not working) | ||
| Prof., Tech., Manag. | 0.077 (0.074) | |
| Clerical | −0.385*** (0.105) | |
| Sales | −0.516*** (0.100) | |
| Agric-self employed | −0.309*** (0.087) | |
| Agric-employee | −0.539*** (0.069) | |
| Services | −0.461*** (0.098) | |
| Skilled manual | −0.266* (0.118) | |
| Unskilled manual | −0.565*** (0.144) | |
| Don’t know | 1.122 (1.103) | |
| Father’s education (ref: No education) | ||
| Primary | −0.182*** (0.039) | |
| Secondary | 0.057 (0.042) | |
| Higher | −0.368*** (0.074) | |
| Father’s occupation (ref: Not working) | ||
| Prof., Tech., Manag. | −0.018 (0.077) | |
| Clerical | 0.044 (0.089) | |
| Sales | −0.058 (0.108) | |
| Agric-self employed | −0.290*** (0.079) | |
| Agric-employee | −0.381*** (0.078) | |
| Services | 0.068 (0.076) | |
| Skilled manual | −0.170* (0.071) | |
| Unskilled manual | −0.191* (0.081) | |
| Don’t know | −0.358 (0.210) | |
| Constant | −17.138*** (0.289) | −18.423*** (0.309) |
| ln( | 1.902 (0.015) | 1.931 (0.015) |
9.249 (0.315) | 7.984 (0.277) | |
Significance: *: p < 0.050, **: p < 0.010, ***: p < 0.001
Fig. 4Estimated hazard ratios for selected factors, by year of birth