| Literature DB >> 33985466 |
Edward Kwabena Ameyaw1, Seun Anjorin2, Bright Opoku Ahinkorah1, Abdul-Aziz Seidu3,4, Olalekan A Uthman2, Mpho Keetile5, Sanni Yaya6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Female genital mutilation is common in Sierra Leone. Evidence indicates that empowering women provides protective benefits against female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). Yet, the relationship between women's empowerment and their intention to cut their daughters has not been explored in Sierra Leone. The aim of this study was to assess the association between women's empowerment and their intention to have their daughters undergo FGM/C in the country.Entities:
Keywords: Cutting daughters; Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting; Multi-level analysis; Sierra Leone; Women’s intentions
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33985466 PMCID: PMC8120903 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-021-01340-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Womens Health ISSN: 1472-6874 Impact factor: 2.809
Socio-demographic characteristics of study participants
| Variable | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| (n) | (%) | |
| Labour force participation | ||
| Yes | 5,146 | 80.5 |
| No | 1249 | 19.5 |
| Wife beating acceptance | ||
| Low | 2,066 | 32.3 |
| Medium | 2,519 | 39.4 |
| High | 1,810 | 28.3 |
| Women’s knowledge level | ||
| Low | 2,297 | 35.9 |
| Medium | 2,151 | 33.6 |
| High | 1,946 | 30.4 |
| Decision making power | ||
| Low | 2155 | 33.7 |
| Medium | 2277 | 35.6 |
| High | 1963 | 30.7 |
| Age | ||
| 15–19 | 187 | 2.9 |
| 20–24 | 775 | 12.1 |
| 25–29 | 1,448 | 22.7 |
| 30–34 | 1,417 | 22.2 |
| 35–39 | 1,350 | 21.1 |
| 40–44 | 680 | 10.6 |
| 45–49 | 537 | 8.4 |
| Wealth index | ||
| Poorest | 1,469 | 23.0 |
| Poorer | 1,428 | 22.3 |
| Middle | 1,406 | 22.0 |
| Richer | 1,194 | 18.7 |
| Richest | 898 | 14.0 |
| Partner’s education | ||
| No education | 4,212 | 67.0 |
| Primary | 562 | 8.9 |
| Secondary + | 1,517 | 24.1 |
| Circumcised | ||
| No | 153 | 2.4 |
| Yes | 6,242 | 97.6 |
| Social acceptance of FGM/C | ||
| No | 2,259 | 35.3 |
| Yes | 4,136 | 64.7 |
| Required by religion | ||
| No | 2,366 | 37.0 |
| Yes | 4,028 | 63.0 |
| Family head | ||
| Male | 5,066 | 79.2 |
| Female | 1,329 | 20.8 |
| Region | ||
| Eastern | 1,672 | 26.2 |
| Northern | 2,513 | 39.3 |
| Southern | 1,488 | 23.3 |
| Western | 722 | 11.3 |
| Residence | ||
| Urban | 1,545 | 24.2 |
| Rural | 4,850 | 75.8 |
Source: 2013 Sierra Leone Demographic and Health Survey
Distribution of women intending to cut their daughters by various characteristics
| Variable | Proportion Intending to circumcise daughter (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Labour force participation (%) | ||
| Yes | 91.2 (90.4–91.9) | < 0.001 |
| No | 86.0 (84.1–87.8) | |
| Wife beating acceptance (%) | < 0.001 | |
| Low | 86.4 (84.9–87.8) | |
| Medium | 89.7 (88.4–90.8) | |
| High | 94.9 (93.8–95.8) | |
| Women’s knowledge level (%) | < 0.001 | |
| Low | 93.6 (92.5–94.6) | |
| Medium | 94.5 (93.4–95.4) | |
| High | 81.6 (79.8–83.2) | |
| Decision making power (%) | < 0.001 | |
| Low | 91.0 (89.0–92.8) | |
| Medium | 90.0 (87.7–91.9) | |
| High | 85.0 (82.2–87.4) | |
| Age (%) | 0.354 | |
| 15–19 | 90.8 (85.8–94.1) | |
| 20–24 | 91.0 (88.8–92.8) | |
| 25–29 | 90.6 (89.0–92.0) | |
| 30–34 | 90.5 (88.9–91.9) | |
| 35–39 | 89.5 (87.8–91.0) | |
| 40–44 | 90.1 (87.6–92.2) | |
| 45–49 | 87.4 (84.3–89.9) | |
| Wealth index (%) | < 0.001 | |
| Poorest | 95.3 (94.1–96.3) | |
| Poorer | 93.2 (91.7–94.5) | |
| Middle | 93.5 (92.0–94.7) | |
| Richer | 90.8 (89.1–92.2) | |
| Richest | 71.6 (68.6–74.4) | |
| Partner’s education (%) | < 0.001 | |
| No education | 94.1 (93.4–94.8) | |
| Primary | 92.0 (89.5–94.0) | |
| Secondary + | 78.6 (76.5–80.6) | |
| Circumcised (%) | < 0.001 | |
| No | 31.6 (24.3–39.9) | |
| Yes | 91.4 (90.6–92.0) | |
| Social acceptance of FGM/C (%) | < 0.001 | |
| No | 97.6 (97.1–98.0) | |
| Yes | 76.7 (74.8–78.3) | |
| Required by religion (%) | < 0.001 | |
| No | 78.5 (76.7–80.1) | |
| Yes | 96.6 (96.0–97.2) | |
| Family head (%) | < 0.01 | |
| Male | 90.7 (90.0–91.5) | |
| Female | 87.9 (86.1–89.5) | |
| Region (%) | < 0.001 | |
| Eastern | 91.2 (89.7–92.6) | |
| Northern | 93.8 (92.8–94.7) | |
| Southern | 91.6 (90.1–92.8) | |
| Western | 69.8 (66.2–73.1) | |
| Residence (%) | < 0.001 | |
| Urban | 81.4 (79.5–83.0) | |
| Rural | 93.8 (93.1–94.5) |
Source: 2013 Sierra Leone Demographic and Health Survey
District-level clustering of FGM/C intentions
| Model 1 | Model 4 | |
|---|---|---|
| District level | ||
| Variance (95% CrI) | 0.9 (0.2–1.5) | 0.2 (0.1–0.4) |
| VPC %, (95% Crl) | 17.7 (4.7–26.9) | 5.4 (1.2–10.2) |
| MOR (95% CrI) | 2.4 (1.5–3.2) | 1.5 (1.2–1.9) |
| Explained variation (%) | Ref | 76.7 |
| Contextual level | ||
| Variance (95% CrI) | 0.7 (0.53–0.9) | 0.2 (0.1–0.6) |
| VPC % (95% Crl) | 32.1 (17.9–42.1) | 11.6 (4.1–23.5) |
| MOR (95% CrI) | 2.2 (2.0–2.4) | 1.6 (1.3–2.0) |
| Explained variation (%) | Ref | 67.1 |
OR, odds ratios; Crls, credible intervals; VPC, variance partition coefficient; MOR, median odds ratio
Individual and household-level variations in women’s FGM/C intentions
| Variable | OR (95% CrI) |
|---|---|
| Labour force participation | |
| Yes | 1.8* (1.0–3.3) |
| No | Ref |
| Wife beating acceptance | |
| Low | Ref |
| Medium | 1.4* (1.0–1.9) |
| High | 1.8** (1.19–2.9) |
| Women’s knowledge level | |
| Low | Ref |
| Medium | 0.6 (0.3–1.3) |
| High | 0.5*** (0.3–0.6) |
| Decision making power | |
| Low | Ref |
| Medium | 0.9 (0.6–1.3) |
| High | 0.7* (0.5–0.9) |
| Age | |
| 15–19 | Ref |
| 20–24 | 0.2* (0.1–0.8) |
| 25–29 | 0.3 (0.1–1.0) |
| 30–34 | 0.2* (0.1–0.9) |
| 35–39 | 0.2* (0.1–0.7) |
| 40–44 | 0.3* (0.1–0.9) |
| 45–49 | 0.1** (0.0–0.5) |
| Wealth index | |
| Poorest | Ref |
| Poorer | 0.6 (0.3–1.1) |
| Middle | 0.6 (0.3–1.1) |
| Richer | 0.5* (0.2–0.8) |
| Richest | 0.3** (0.2–0.6) |
| Partner’s education | |
| No education | Ref |
| Primary | 0.7 (0.4–1.2) |
| Secondary + | 0.4*** (0.3–0.6) |
| Circumcised | |
| No | Ref |
| Yes | 23.8*** (11.8–47.8) |
| Social Acceptance of FGM/C | |
| No | Ref |
| Yes | 10.0*** (8.1–12.3) |
| Required by religion | |
| No | Ref |
| Yes | 5.0*** (4.1–6.0) |
| Family head | |
| Male | Ref |
| Female | 0.8 (0.7–1.0) |
| Residence | |
| Urban | Ref |
| Rural | 2.1*** (1.7–2.7) |
| Sample Size | |
| District level | 14 |
| Contextual level | 369 |
| Individual level | 2,399 |
OR = Odds ratios, Crls = credible intervals
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Community-level variations in FGM/C intentions
| Variable | aOR (95% CrI) |
|---|---|
| Labour force participation | |
| Yes | 2.5** (1.3–4.7) |
| No | Ref |
| Wife beating acceptance | |
| Low | Ref |
| Medium | 1.8** (1.2–2.6) |
| High | 2.7*** (1.7–4.5) |
| Women’s knowledge level | |
| Low | Ref |
| Medium | 0.7 (0.3–1.6) |
| High | 0.4*** (0.3–0.7) |
| Decision making power | |
| Low | Ref |
| Medium | 0.9 (0.5–1.3) |
| High | 0.8 (0.5–1.3) |
| Age | |
| 15–19 | Ref |
| 20–24 | 0.3 (0.1–1.2) |
| 25–29 | 0.4 (0.1–1.5) |
| 30–34 | 0.3 (0.1–1.3) |
| 35–39 | 0.3 (0.1–1.0) |
| 40–44 | 0.3 (0.1–1.2) |
| 45–49 | 0.2** (0.0–0.6) |
| Wealth index | |
| Poorest | Ref |
| Poorer | 0.6 (0.3–1.3) |
| Middle | 0.6 (0.3–1.3) |
| Richer | 0.5 (0.3–1.1) |
| Richest | 0.5 (0.2–1.0) |
| Partner’s education | |
| No education | Ref |
| Primary | 0.7 (0.4–1.3) |
| Secondary + | 0.5** (0.4–0.8) |
| Circumcised | |
| No | Ref |
| Yes | 9.4*** (4.3–20.6) |
| Social acceptance of FGM/C | |
| No | Ref |
| Yes | 9.9*** (6.7–14.8) |
| Required by religion | |
| No | Ref |
| Yes | 8.9*** (6.0–13.3) |
| Family head | |
| Male | Ref |
| Female | 0.79 (0.5–1.2) |
| Urban | Ref |
| Rural | 0.7 (0.6–1.8) |
| District level | |
| Variance (95% CrI) | 0.2 (0.1–0.4) |
| VPC % (95% Crl) | 5.4 (1.2–10.2) |
| MOR (95% Crl) | 1.5 (1.2–1.9) |
| Explained variation (%) | 76.7 |
| Contextual level | |
| Variance (95% CrI) | 0.2 (0.1–0.6) |
| VPC % (95% Crl) | 11.6 (4.1–23.5) |
| MOR (95% CrI) | 1.6 (1.3–2.0) |
| Explained variation (%) | 67.1 |
| Sample size | |
| District level | 14 |
| Contextual level | 369 |
| Individual level | 2,399 |
OR, odds ratios; Crls, credible intervals
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001