Female genital mutilation and safer sex negotiation among women in sexual unions in sub-Saharan Africa: Analysis of demographic and health survey data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The practice of female genital mutilation is associated with harmful social norms promoting violence against girls and women. Various studies have been conducted to examine the prevalence of female genital mutilation and its associated factors. However, there has been limited studies conducted to assess the association between female genital mutilation and markers of women's autonomy, such as their ability to negotiate for safer sex. In this study, we examined the association between female genital mutilation and women's ability to negotiate for safer sex in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). METHODS: We pooled data from the most recent Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) conducted from 2010 to 2020. Data from a sample of 50,337 currently married and cohabiting women from eleven sub-Saharan African countries were included in the study. A multilevel binary logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between female genital mutilation and women's ability to refuse sex and ask their partners to use condom. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to present the findings of the logistic regression analysis. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. RESULTS: Female genital mutilation was performed on 56.1% of women included in our study. The highest and lowest prevalence of female genital mutilation were found among women from Guinea (96.3%) and Togo (6.9%), respectively. We found that women who had undergone female genital mutilation were less likely to refuse sex from their partners (aOR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.86, 0.96) and ask their partners to use condoms (aOR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.78, 0.86) compared to those who had not undergone female genital mutilation. CONCLUSION: Female genital mutilation hinders women's ability to negotiate for safer sex. It is necessary to implement health education and promotion interventions (e.g., decision making skills) that assist women who have experienced female genital mutilation to negotiate for safer sex. These interventions are crucial to enhance sexual health outcomes for these women. Further, strict enforcement of policies and laws aimed at eradicating the practice of female genital mutilation are encouraged to help contribute to the improvement of women's reproductive health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".