ArticlePloS one2020
Understanding the association between parental attitudes and the practice of female genital mutilation among daughters.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- "All you Gain is Pain and Sorrow": Facilitators and Barriers to the Prevention of Female Genital Mutilation in High-income Countries.Trauma, violence & abuse · 2024Pooled it
- Prevalence and drivers of female genital mutilation/cutting in three coastal governorates in Yemen.BMC public health · 2023Article
- The Psychosocial Impacts of Intimate Partner Violence against Women in LMIC Contexts: Toward a Holistic Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Women's Empowerment as It Relates to Attitudes Towards and Practice of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting of Daughters: An Ecological Analysis of Demographic and Health Surveys From 12 African Countries.Frontiers in sociology · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Female genital mutilation is a harmful traditional practice that violates girls' right to health and overall well-being. Most research cites social acceptance, marriageability, community belonging, proof of virginity, curbing promiscuity, hygiene, and religion as motivations for the practice. It is generally assumed that individual attitudes of parents and other family members have an impact on decisions related to the cutting of girls, and that such attitudes are influenced by social norms. The aim of this study is to understand how parental attitudes towards the practice of female genital mutilation influence decision making related to the cutting of girls. Data from 15 Demographic and Health Surveys were analyzed to assess whether couples with at least one living daughter aged 0 to 14 years share the same opinions about the continuation of the practice, and to what extent couples' opinions are associated with the risk of daughters being cut. The analysis reveals that a significant percentage of couples hold discordant opinions on the continuation of the practice including in countries where the practice is very common. While a daughter's likelihood of being cut is much higher when both parents think the practice should continue, the analysis also shows that many cut girls have parents who oppose the practice. It further suggests that female genital mutilation is more prevalent among daughters whose mothers want the practice to continue and whose fathers are opposed or undecided, compared to daughters with fathers who are the sole parent supporting its continuation. Understanding the extent to which parental opinions influence decisions and which girls are most likely to be cut is essential for developing appropriate interventions aimed at promoting the abandonment of the practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.