What Works and What Does Not: A Discussion of Popular Approaches for the Abandonment of Female Genital Mutilation
The prevalence of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is reducing in almost all countries in which it is a traditional practice. There are huge variations between countries and communities though, ranging from no change at all to countries and communities where the practice has been more than halved fro...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2013-01-01
|
| Series: | Obstetrics and Gynecology International |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/348248 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849691938296430592 |
|---|---|
| author | R. Elise B. Johansen Nafissatou J. Diop Glenn Laverack Els Leye |
| author_facet | R. Elise B. Johansen Nafissatou J. Diop Glenn Laverack Els Leye |
| author_sort | R. Elise B. Johansen |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The prevalence of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is reducing in almost all countries in which it is a traditional practice. There are huge variations between countries and communities though, ranging from no change at all to countries and communities where the practice has been more than halved from one generation to the next. Various interventions implemented over the last 30–40 years are believed to have been instrumental in stimulating this reduction, even though in most cases the decrease in prevalence has been slow. This raises questions about the efficacy of interventions to eliminate FGM and an urgent need to channel the limited resources available, where it can make the most difference in the abandonment of FGM. This paper is intended to contribute to the design of more effective interventions by assessing existing knowledge of what works and what does not and discusses some of the most common approaches that have been evaluated: health risk approaches, conversion of excisers, training of health professionals as change agents, alternative rituals, community-led approaches, public statements, and legal measures. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-b399004152104459bb2dba5f6f0bc17e |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 1687-9589 1687-9597 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2013-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Obstetrics and Gynecology International |
| spelling | doaj-art-b399004152104459bb2dba5f6f0bc17e2025-08-20T03:20:51ZengWileyObstetrics and Gynecology International1687-95891687-95972013-01-01201310.1155/2013/348248348248What Works and What Does Not: A Discussion of Popular Approaches for the Abandonment of Female Genital MutilationR. Elise B. Johansen0Nafissatou J. Diop1Glenn Laverack2Els Leye3Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, SwitzerlandUNFPA-UNICEF Joint Programme on FGM/C, United Nations Population Fund, 304 East 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017, USAFlinders University, Flinders Prevention, Promotion and Primary Health Care, Southgate Institute South Australia, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, AustraliaInternational Centre for Reproductive Health, De Pintelaan 185 UZP114, 9000 Ghent, BelgiumThe prevalence of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is reducing in almost all countries in which it is a traditional practice. There are huge variations between countries and communities though, ranging from no change at all to countries and communities where the practice has been more than halved from one generation to the next. Various interventions implemented over the last 30–40 years are believed to have been instrumental in stimulating this reduction, even though in most cases the decrease in prevalence has been slow. This raises questions about the efficacy of interventions to eliminate FGM and an urgent need to channel the limited resources available, where it can make the most difference in the abandonment of FGM. This paper is intended to contribute to the design of more effective interventions by assessing existing knowledge of what works and what does not and discusses some of the most common approaches that have been evaluated: health risk approaches, conversion of excisers, training of health professionals as change agents, alternative rituals, community-led approaches, public statements, and legal measures.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/348248 |
| spellingShingle | R. Elise B. Johansen Nafissatou J. Diop Glenn Laverack Els Leye What Works and What Does Not: A Discussion of Popular Approaches for the Abandonment of Female Genital Mutilation Obstetrics and Gynecology International |
| title | What Works and What Does Not: A Discussion of Popular Approaches for the Abandonment of Female Genital Mutilation |
| title_full | What Works and What Does Not: A Discussion of Popular Approaches for the Abandonment of Female Genital Mutilation |
| title_fullStr | What Works and What Does Not: A Discussion of Popular Approaches for the Abandonment of Female Genital Mutilation |
| title_full_unstemmed | What Works and What Does Not: A Discussion of Popular Approaches for the Abandonment of Female Genital Mutilation |
| title_short | What Works and What Does Not: A Discussion of Popular Approaches for the Abandonment of Female Genital Mutilation |
| title_sort | what works and what does not a discussion of popular approaches for the abandonment of female genital mutilation |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/348248 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT relisebjohansen whatworksandwhatdoesnotadiscussionofpopularapproachesfortheabandonmentoffemalegenitalmutilation AT nafissatoujdiop whatworksandwhatdoesnotadiscussionofpopularapproachesfortheabandonmentoffemalegenitalmutilation AT glennlaverack whatworksandwhatdoesnotadiscussionofpopularapproachesfortheabandonmentoffemalegenitalmutilation AT elsleye whatworksandwhatdoesnotadiscussionofpopularapproachesfortheabandonmentoffemalegenitalmutilation |