IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i10p3362-d357170.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision-Making Process in Female Genital Mutilation: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Angi Alradie-Mohamed

    (School of Allied Health, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford CM1 1SQ, UK)

  • Russell Kabir

    (School of Allied Health, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford CM1 1SQ, UK)

  • S.M. Yasir Arafat

    (Department of Psychiatry, Enam Medical College and Hospital, Dhaka 1340, Bangladesh)

Abstract

Female genital mutilation/cutting “FGM/C” is a deep-rooted damaging practice. Despite the growing efforts to end this practice, the current trends of its decline are not enough to overcome the population’s underlying growth. The aim of this research is to investigate the FGM/C household decision-making process and identify the main household decision-makers. A review of peer-reviewed articles was conducted by searching PubMed, JSTOR, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, EBSCO, and CINAHL Plus via systematic search using keywords. The found publications were screen using inclusion and exclusion criteria in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. After critical appraisal, seventeen articles were included in this review. The data extracted from the articles regarding FGM/C household-decision making process and decision-makers were analyzed using narrative analysis. FGM/C decision-making process varies from a region to another; however, it generally involves more than one individual, and each one has different power over the decision. Fathers, mothers, and grandmothers are the main decision-makers. It was shown from this review that opening the dialogue regarding FGM/C between sexes may lead to a productive decision-making process. The participation of fathers in the decision-making may free the mothers from the social-pressure and responsibility of carrying on traditions and create a more favorable environment to stop FGM/C practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Angi Alradie-Mohamed & Russell Kabir & S.M. Yasir Arafat, 2020. "Decision-Making Process in Female Genital Mutilation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-22, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:10:p:3362-:d:357170
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/10/3362/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/10/3362/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gerry Mackie, 2009. "Social Dynamics of Abandonment of Harmful Practices: A new look at the theory," Papers inwopa09/61, Innocenti Working Papers.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Engelsma, Brian & Mackie, Gerry & Merrell, Brandon, 2020. "Unprogrammed abandonment of female genital mutilation/cutting," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    2. Auriol, Emmanuelle & Camilotti, Giula & Platteau, Jean-Philippe, 2017. "Eradicating Women-Hurting Customs: What Role for Social Engineering?," CEPR Discussion Papers 12107, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Evans, Alice, 2018. "Politicising inequality: The power of ideas," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 360-372.
    4. Joseph Oluchukwu Wogu & Chinenye Amonyeze & Raphael Oluwasina Babatola Folorunsho & Henry E. Aloh, 2019. "An Evaluation of the Impact of Media Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in the Rural Communities of Enugu State, Nigeria," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(14), pages 1-37, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:10:p:3362-:d:357170. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.