| Literature DB >> 35525954 |
Samuel Kimani1,2,3, Chantalle Okondo4, Jacinta Muteshi-Strachan5, Jaldesa Guyo6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Female genital mutilation (FGM) curtails women's health, human rights and development. Health system as a critical pillar for social justice is key in addressing FGM while executing the core mandate of disease prevention and management. By leveraging opportune moments, events and experiences involving client-provider interactions, relevant FGM-related communications, behavior change and management interventions can be implemented through health facilities or in communities. It is unclear whether Kenyan health system has maximized this strategic advantage and positioning to address FGM.Entities:
Keywords: Care services; Female genital mutilation; Health system response; Kenya; Prevention; Quality of services; West Pokot
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35525954 PMCID: PMC9077351 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-07979-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.908
Summary of data collection approaches with their corresponding sample size
| S/N | Data gathering activity | Study Population | Sample size | Study location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Observations of client-provider interactions | Health care providers and women with FGM seeking reproductive health services | 61 | County level health facilities |
| 2 | Client-exit interviews | Women with FGM seeking reproductive health services | 360 | County level health facilities |
| 3 | Service data abstraction | Health facility administers, health care providers | 10 | County level health facilities |
Efforts to identify FGM and related complications by health workers during client-provider interactions
| Level of Facility | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Secondary | Tertiary | Total | |||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Asked client on cut FGM status | ||||||||
| No | 38 | 88.4 | 6 | 54.5 | 7 | 100 | 51 | 83.6 |
| Yes | 4 | 9.3 | 5 | 45.5 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 14.8 |
| Missing | 1 | 2.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.6 |
| Asked about the severity of cut | ||||||||
| No | 40 | 93 | 9 | 81.8 | 7 | 100 | 56 | 91.8 |
| Yes | 3 | 7 | 2 | 18.2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 8.2 |
| Asked about possible effects of FGM | ||||||||
| No | 39 | 90.7 | 8 | 72.7 | 7 | 100 | 54 | 88.5 |
| Yes | 4 | 9.3 | 3 | 27.3 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 11.5 |
| Explain how FGM might have undermined health physically and mentally | ||||||||
| No | 41 | 95.3 | 8 | 72.7 | 7 | 100 | 56 | 91.8 |
| Yes | 2 | 4.7 | 3 | 27.3 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 8.2 |
Availability of FGM-prevention interventions across health facilities in West Pokot
| Interventions for FGM preventions | Level of Facility | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary ( | Secondary ( | Tertiary ( | Total ( | |||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Educated and advised on prevention of FGM | ||||||||
| No | 37 | 86 | 6 | 54.5 | 5 | 71.4 | 48 | 78.7 |
| Yes | 6 | 14 | 5 | 45.5 | 1 | 14.3 | 12 | 19.7 |
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 14.3 | 1 | 1.6 |
| Advised on availability of linkage to authorities for reporting potential risk of FGM | ||||||||
| No | 30 | 69.8 | 7 | 63.6 | 3 | 42.9 | 40 | 65.6 |
| Yes | 13 | 30.2 | 4 | 36.4 | 3 | 42.9 | 20 | 32.8 |
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 14.3 | 1 | 1.6 |
| Existence of mechanism for follow-up | ||||||||
| No | 31 | 72.1 | 10 | 90.9 | 2 | 28.6 | 43 | 70.5 |
| Yes | 11 | 25.6 | 1 | 9.1 | 4 | 57.1 | 16 | 26.2 |
| Missing | 1 | 2.3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 14.3 | 2 | 3.3 |
| Provision of IEC related materials to help with reinforcement of FGM prevention | ||||||||
| No | 43 | 100 | 8 | 72.7 | 6 | 85.7 | 57 | 93.4 |
| Yes | 0 | 0 | 3 | 27.3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4.9 |
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 14.3 | 1 | 1.6 |
| Advise on existence of link with community civil groups and gatekeepers to help in case of FGM | ||||||||
| No | 26 | 60.5 | 4 | 36.4 | 3 | 42.9 | 33 | 54.1 |
| Yes | 16 | 37.2 | 7 | 63.6 | 3 | 42.9 | 26 | 42.6 |
| Missing | 1 | 2.3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 14.3 | 2 | 3.3 |
| Possible outreaches in community to help with prevention of FGM | ||||||||
| No | 31 | 72.1 | 6 | 54.5 | 3 | 42.9 | 40 | 65.6 |
| Yes | 11 | 25.6 | 5 | 45.5 | 3 | 42.9 | 19 | 31.1 |
| Missing | 1 | 2.3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 14.3 | 2 | 3.3 |
Availability of resources for FGM-prevention and management across health facilities
| Level of facility | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Secondary | Tertiary | Total | |||||
| n | % | N | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Infrastructure | ||||||||
| Avails private area for consultations | ||||||||
| No | 5 | 11.6 | 2 | 18.2 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 11.5 |
| Yes | 38 | 88.4 | 9 | 81.8 | 7 | 100 | 54 | 88.5 |
| Service provider with adequate knowledge of FGM | ||||||||
| No | 27 | 62.8 | 2 | 18.2 | 4 | 57.1 | 33 | 54.1 |
| Yes | 14 | 32.6 | 9 | 81.8 | 3 | 42.9 | 26 | 42.6 |
| Missing | 2 | 4.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3.3 |
| Availability of different service providers to help with FGM cases | ||||||||
| No | 39 | 90.7 | 10 | 90.9 | 1 | 14.3 | 50 | 82 |
| Yes | 2 | 4.7 | 1 | 9.1 | 6 | 85.7 | 9 | 14.8 |
| Missing | 2 | 4.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3.3 |
| Explains the existence of referral pathway for FGM cases to higher level of care | ||||||||
| No | 17 | 39.5 | 4 | 36.4 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 34.4 |
| Yes | 25 | 58.1 | 7 | 63.6 | 7 | 100 | 39 | 63.9 |
| Missing | 1 | 2.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.6 |
| Describes the existence of association of health facility with legal authorities | ||||||||
| No | 24 | 55.8 | 5 | 45.5 | 1 | 14.3 | 30 | 49.2 |
| Yes | 18 | 41.9 | 6 | 54.5 | 6 | 85.7 | 30 | 49.2 |
| Missing | 1 | 2.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.6 |
| Avails the necessary equipment needed for consultation | ||||||||
| No | 9 | 20.9 | 3 | 27.3 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 19.7 |
| Yes | 34 | 79.1 | 7 | 63.6 | 7 | 100 | 48 | 78.7 |
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 1 | 9.1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.6 |
Demographic characteristics of respondents for exit interviews
| Characteristics | Facility Level | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Secondary | Tertiary | Total | |||||
| n | % | N | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Age | ||||||||
| < 15 years | 3 | 1.4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1.1 |
| 15–19 years | 95 | 43.2 | 33 | 33.7 | 12 | 28.6 | 140 | 38.9 |
| 20–24 years | 37 | 16.8 | 21 | 21.4 | 10 | 23.8 | 68 | 18.9 |
| 25–30 years | 35 | 15.9 | 18 | 18.4 | 13 | 31 | 66 | 18.3 |
| 30 years or older | 50 | 22.7 | 25 | 25.5 | 7 | 16.7 | 82 | 22.8 |
| Marital status | ||||||||
| Married/monogamous | 100 | 45.5 | 61 | 62.2 | 31 | 73.8 | 192 | 53.3 |
| Married/polygamous | 83 | 37.7 | 29 | 29.6 | 9 | 21.4 | 121 | 33.6 |
| Single, never married | 30 | 13.6 | 5 | 5.1 | 2 | 4.8 | 37 | 10.3 |
| Divorced/separated/widowed | 2 | 0.9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.6 |
| Missing | 5 | 2.3 | 3 | 3.1 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 2.2 |
| Number of living children | ||||||||
| None | 30 | 13.6 | 8 | 8.2 | 3 | 7.1 | 41 | 11.4 |
| 1–3 children | 108 | 49.1 | 50 | 51 | 29 | 69 | 187 | 51.9 |
| 4–7 children | 52 | 23.6 | 23 | 23.5 | 6 | 14.3 | 81 | 22.5 |
| 7 or more children | 26 | 11.8 | 11 | 11.2 | 3 | 7.1 | 40 | 11.1 |
| Missing | 4 | 1.8 | 6 | 6.1 | 1 | 2.4 | 11 | 3.1 |
| Education level | ||||||||
| Did not attend formal school | 73 | 33.2 | 35 | 35.7 | 11 | 26.2 | 119 | 33.1 |
| Primary | 109 | 49.5 | 48 | 49 | 14 | 33.3 | 171 | 47.5 |
| Secondary | 33 | 15 | 8 | 8.2 | 12 | 28.6 | 53 | 14.7 |
| Tertiary | 3 | 1.4 | 6 | 6.1 | 5 | 11.9 | 14 | 3.9 |
| Missing | 2 | 0.9 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0.8 |
| Monthly income (Kenyan Shillings) | ||||||||
| None | 31 | 28.4 | 9 | 17 | 10 | 35.7 | 50 | 26.3 |
| < 3000 | 25 | 22.9 | 5 | 9.4 | 2 | 7.1 | 32 | 16.8 |
| 3000 to < 5000 | 20 | 18.3 | 9 | 17 | 1 | 3.6 | 30 | 15.8 |
| 5000 to < 10,000 | 22 | 20.2 | 13 | 24.5 | 5 | 17.9 | 40 | 21.1 |
| 10,000 to < 20,000 | 8 | 7.3 | 9 | 17 | 7 | 25 | 24 | 12.6 |
| 20,000 or more | 3 | 2.8 | 8 | 15.1 | 3 | 10.7 | 14 | 7.4 |
| Total | 109 | 100 | 53 | 100 | 28 | 100 | 190 | 100 |
| Missing/Don’t Know | 111 | 50.5 | 45 | 45.9 | 14 | 33.3 | 170 | 47.2 |
| Age of undergoing FGM | ||||||||
| 8–10 years | 9 | 4 | 8 | 9 | 3 | 7 | 20 | 5.6 |
| 11–15 years | 169 | 77 | 75 | 77 | 30 | 71 | 274 | 76.1 |
| 16–19 years | 38 | 17 | 15 | 15 | 8 | 19 | 61 | 16.9 |
| 20 years and above | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 1.4 |
Content and quality of information shared with respondents during reproductive health services consultations
| Communication | Facility Level | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Secondary | Tertiary | Total | |||||
| (n) | % | (n) | % | (n) | % | (n) | % | |
| Did the provider explain to you what he/she is managing and why? | ||||||||
| No | (16) | 7.3 | (11) | 11.2 | (5) | 11.9 | 32 | 8.9 |
| Yes | (204) | 92.7 | (86) | 87.8 | (37) | 88.1 | 327 | 90.8 |
| Missing | (0) | 0 | (1) | 1 | (0) | 0 | 1 | 0.3 |
| Did the provider explain the treatment instructions? | ||||||||
| No | 23 | 10.5 | 10 | 10.2 | 5 | 11.9 | 38 | 10.6 |
| Yes | 196 | 89.1 | 88 | 89.8 | 37 | 88.1 | 321 | 89.2 |
| Missing | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.3 |
| Did the provider explain to you the negative consequences of FGM? | ||||||||
| No | 180 | 81.8 | 83 | 85 | 39 | 93 | 302 | 84 |
| Yes | 40 | 18.2 | 15 | 15 | 3 | 7.1 | 58 | 16 |
| Did the provider discuss with you the need to stop practicing FGM? | ||||||||
| No | 181 | 82.3 | 84 | 85.7 | 39 | 92.9 | 304 | 84.4 |
| Yes | 38 | 17.3 | 14 | 14.3 | 3 | 7.1 | 55 | 15.3 |
| Missing | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.3 |
| During your visit today, were you given any information on follow-up care? | ||||||||
| No | 62 | 28 | 14 | 14.3 | 8 | 19 | 84 | 23.3 |
| Yes | 158 | 72 | 84 | 85.7 | 34 | 81 | 276 | 76.7 |
| During your visit today, were you given an appointment for a follow-up visit? | ||||||||
| No | 2 | 1.3 | 1 | 1.2 | 2 | 5.7 | 5 | 1.8 |
| Yes | 157 | 99 | 84 | 98.8 | 33 | 94.3 | 274 | 98.2 |
| During your visit today, were you referred for any services? | ||||||||
| No | 205 | 93.2 | 96 | 98 | 37 | 88.1 | 338 | 93.9 |
| Yes | 8 | 3.6 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 7.1 | 12 | 3.3 |
| Missing | 7 | 3.2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4.8 | 10 | 2.8 |