Display options
Cite
Johansen RE, Diop NJ, Laverack G, et al. What works and what does not: a discussion of popular approaches for the abandonment of female genital mutilation. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2013;2013:348248doi: 10.1155/2013/348248.
Johansen, R. E., Diop, N. J., Laverack, G., & Leye, E. (2013). What works and what does not: a discussion of popular approaches for the abandonment of female genital mutilation. Obstetrics and gynecology international, 2013348248. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/348248
Johansen, R Elise B, et al. "What works and what does not: a discussion of popular approaches for the abandonment of female genital mutilation." Obstetrics and gynecology international vol. 2013 (2013): 348248. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/348248
Johansen RE, Diop NJ, Laverack G, Leye E. What works and what does not: a discussion of popular approaches for the abandonment of female genital mutilation. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2013;2013:348248. doi: 10.1155/2013/348248. Epub 2013 Apr 23. PMID: 23737795; PMCID: PMC3655658.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Obstet Gynecol Int. 2013;2013:348248. doi: 10.1155/2013/348248. Epub 2013 Apr 23.

What works and what does not: a discussion of popular approaches for the abandonment of female genital mutilation.

Obstetrics and gynecology international

R Elise B Johansen, Nafissatou J Diop, Glenn Laverack, Els Leye

Affiliations

  1. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland.

PMID: 23737795 PMCID: PMC3655658 DOI: 10.1155/2013/348248

Abstract

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.

References

  1. East Mediterr Health J. 2009 Nov-Dec;15(6):1379-88 - PubMed
  2. Ann Trop Paediatr. 2006 Dec;26(4):303-10 - PubMed
  3. Soc Sci Med. 2011 Oct;73(8):1275-83 - PubMed
  4. J Egypt Public Health Assoc. 2003;78(5-6):433-66 - PubMed
  5. Reprod Health. 2011 Oct 03;8:26 - PubMed
  6. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011 Jul;114(1):47-50 - PubMed
  7. Bull World Health Organ. 2012 Feb 1;90(2):120-127F - PubMed
  8. Lancet. 2006 Jun 3;367(9525):1835-41 - PubMed
  9. Reprod Health Matters. 2009 Nov;17(34):47-54 - PubMed
  10. Stud Fam Plann. 2012 Jun;43(2):135-46 - PubMed
  11. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003 Sep;82(3):251-61 - PubMed

Publication Types