Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research article

Estimating utility value for female genital mutilation

Authors: Cyrus Alinia, Bakhtiar Piroozi, Fariba Jahanbin, Hossein Safari, Amjad Mohamadi-Bolbanabad, Ali Kazemi-Karyani, Ghobad Moradi, Fariba Farhadifar, Mohammad Ebrahimi

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) is a clear violation of women’s rights and can have adverse and irreversible health effects as well. Worldwide, more than 200 million women and girls have undergone FGM/C. Utility value of FGM/C has not been estimated yet, so we designed this study to extract the health utility value of FGM/C for the first time in the world.

Methods

In a cross-sectional study in Iran, 125 girls and women who underwent FGM/C procedure were examined by the trained midwives in order to determine its type. In addition, a questionnaire was completed for identifying the socio-demographic factors and extracting the health utility of these individuals. Health utility was measured using Time Trade-off method and also to determine the effects of the socio-demographic factors on the health utility a two-limit censored regression model was applied.

Results

The mean and median of the health utility of women with FGM/C were 0.971 (SE: 0.003) and 0.968 (IQR: 1–0.95), respectively. Number of non-traders was 58 (46.4%) who reported perfect health utility. However, the mean of health utility among traders was 0.946 (SE: 0.002). Only type 1 (Clitoridectomy) and type 2 (Excision) FGM/C were seen in this study. Women with Type 1 FGM/C had significantly lower health utility value (Mean: 0.968, Median: 0.957) than their type 2 counterparts (Mean: 0.987, Median: 1.00). Moreover, women in the age group of 31–45 years (Mean: 0.962, Median: 0.956), single (Mean: 0.950, Median: 0.954), divorced (Mean: 0.951, Median: 0.950), employed (Mean: 0.959, Median: 0.956), and with supplementary insurance (Mean: 0.962, Median: 0.950) had significantly lower health utility than their counterparts.

Conclusion

FGM/C affects physical and psychological well-being of these individuals, resulting in a lack of personal and marital satisfaction, which ultimately leads to a 3% reduction in their health related quality of life. Therefore, preventing from this practice is very important and should be considered by health system policy makers more than before.
Literature
1.
Organization WH. WHO guidelines on the management of health complications from female genital mutilation: policy brief. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.
2.
3.
Ahmed MR, Shaaban MM, Meky HK, Amin Arafa ME, Mohamed TY, Gharib WF, ABJTEJoC A, Care RH. Psychological impact of female genital mutilation among adolescent Egyptian girls: a cross-sectional study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2017;22(4):280–5.
4.
5.
Van Baelen L, Ortensi L, EJTEJoC L, Care RH. Estimates of first-generation women and girls with female genital mutilation in the European Union, Norway and Switzerland. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016;21(6):474–82.
6.
Biglu M-H, Farnam A, Abotalebi P, Biglu S, MJS G, Healthcare R. Effect of female genital mutilation/cutting on sexual functions. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2016;10:3–8.
7.
Daneshkhah F, Allahverdipour H, Jahangiri L, TJIjoph A. Sexual function, mental well-being and quality of life among Kurdish circumcised women in Iran. Iran J Public Health. 2017;46(9):1265.
8.
Dehghankhalili M, Fallahi S, Mahmudi F, Ghaffarpasand F, Shahrzad ME, Taghavi M, Fereydooni Asl MJTjosm. Epidemiology, Regional Characteristics, Knowledge, and Attitude Toward Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in Southern I ran. J Sex Med. 2015;12(7):1577–83.
9.
Pashaei T, Rahimi A, Ardalan A, Felah A, Majlessi F. Related factors of female genital mutilation (FGM) in Ravansar (Iran). J Women’s Health Care. 2012;1(2):1000108.
10.
Khadivzadeh T, Ahadi H. Female circumcision and women's attitude to it, Minab, Iran, 2002–2003; 2008. p. 115–3.
11.
Berg RC, EJHcfwi D. A tradition in transition: factors perpetuating and hindering the continuance of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) summarized in a systematic review. Health care women Int. 2013;34(10):837–59.PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Muteshi JK, Miller S, JMJRh B. The ongoing violence against women: female genital mutilation/cutting. Reprod Health. 2016;13(1):44.
13.
Craven S, Kavanagh A, RJJoscr K. Female genital mutilation management in the ambulatory clinic setting: a case study and review of the literature. J Surg Case Reports. 2016;2016(6):1-3.PubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Reisel D, Creighton SMJM. Long term health consequences of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Maturitas. 2015;80(1):48–51.PubMed
15.
Klein E, Helzner E, Shayowitz M, Kohlhoff S, TAJO S-N. International g: Female Genital Mutilation: Health Consequences and Complications—A Short Literature Review, vol. 2018; 2018.
16.
Rouzi AA, Berg RC, Sahly N, Alkafy S, Alzaban F, HJAjoo A, gynecology. Effects of female genital mutilation/cutting on the sexual function of Sudanese women: a cross-sectional study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(1):62. e61–6.PubMed
17.
Mpinga EK, Macias A, Hasselgard-Rowe J, Kandala N-B, Félicien TK, Verloo H, Zacharie Bukonda NK, PJGha C. Female genital mutilation: a systematic review of research on its economic and social impacts across four decades. Glob Health Action. 2016;9(1):31489.PubMed
18.
Cutting KA. Exploring the association between female genital mutilation/Cutting and early/child marriage; 2018.
19.
Van Rossem R, AJJAosb G. The effects of female genital mutilation on the onset of sexual activity and marriage in Guinea. Arch Sex Behav. 2009;38(2):178–85.
20.
Refaei M, Aghababaei S, Pourreza A, SZJAoIM M. Socioeconomic and Reproductive Health Outcomes of Female Genital Mutilation. Arch Iran Med. 2016;19(11):805-11.
21.
Owojuyigbe M, Bolorunduro M-E, DJRhm B. Female genital mutilation as sexual disability: perceptions of women and their spouses in Akure, Ondo state, Nigeria. Reprod Health Matters. 2017;25(50):80–91.PubMed
22.
AHJOaMjoms E. Female genital mutilation in Sudan. Maced J Med Sci. 2018;6(2):430.
23.
MUJIJoG M. Obstetrics: Female genital mutilation in Nigeria. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2004;84(3):291–8.
24.
Bello OO, Lawal OOJNPMJ. Knowledge and attitude of women on genital cosmetic surgery at university college hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2018;25(4):257.PubMed
25.
Shafie AA, Ng CH, Thanimalai S, Haron N, ABJJoD M, Disorders M. Estimating the utility value of hypoglycaemia according to severity and frequency using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and time trade-off (TTO) survey. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2018;17(2):269–75.
26.
Briggs A, Wild D, Lees M, Reaney M, Dursun S, Parry D, Mukherjee JJH. outcomes qol: Impact of schizophrenia and schizophrenia treatment-related adverse events on quality of life: direct utility elicitation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6(1):105.PubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Rencz F, Gulácsi L, Varga A, Sziklai O, Péntek M, VJViH B. Time trade-off utility values in mild and severe primary dysmenorrhea. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A738–9.
28.
Chen SC, Bayoumi AM, Soon SL, Aftergut K, Cruz P, Sexton SA, McCall CO, Goldstein MK. A catalog of dermatology utilities: a measure of the burden of skin diseases. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc. 2004: Elsevier;2004:160–8.
29.
Stavem KJER. Quality of life in epilepsy: comparison of four preference measures. Epilepsy Research. 1998;29(3):201–9.PubMed
30.
Lim WY, Saw SM, Singh MK, KGJC AE. ophthalmology e: Utility values and myopia in medical students in Singapore. Clin Exp ophthalmol. 2005;33(6):598–603.PubMed
31.
Carroll AE, SMJTJop D. Improving decision analyses: parent preferences (utility values) for pediatric health outcomes. J Pediatr. 2009;155(1):21–5 e25.
32.
Snow RC, Slanger TE, Okonofua FE, Oronsaye F, Wacker J. Female genital cutting in southern urban and peri-urban Nigeria: self-reported validity, social determinants and secular decline. Trop Med Int HealthCopy. 2002;7(1):91–100.PubMed
33.
Fosu M, Nyarko P, Anokye M. Female genital mutilation/cutting among Ghanaian women: the determinants. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences. 2014;4(18):2225–484.
34.
Bogale D, Markos D, Kaso M. Intention toward the continuation of female genital mutilation in bale zone, Ethiopia. BMC Public Health. 2015;7(1):85.
35.
Ouedraogo S: Social effect and female genital mutilation (FGM). Published 2009. Accessed April 24, 2020.
36.
Afifi M. Women’s empowerment and the intention to continue the practice of female genital cutting in Egypt. Arch Iran Med. 2009;12(2):154–60.
37.
Satti A, Elmusharaf S, Bedri H, Idris T, Hashim MS, Suliman GI, Almroth L. Prevalence and determinants of the practice of genital mutilation of girls in Khartoum, Sudan. Ann Trop Paediatr. 2006;26(4):303–10.PubMed
38.
Plugge E, Adam S, El Hindi L, Gitau J, Shodunke N, OJJoPH M-A. The prevention of female genital mutilation in England: what can be done? J Public Health. 2019;41(3):261–6.
39.
Marcusán AK, Singla LR, Secka DM, Utzet M, M-AJIjowsh LC. Female genital mutilation/cutting: changes and trends in knowledge, attitudes, and practices among health care professionals in The Gambia. Int J Womens Health. 2016;8:103-17.
40.
Balfour J, Abdulcadir J, Say L, MJJBhsr H. Interventions for healthcare providers to improve treatment and prevention of female genital mutilation: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):409.
41.
Bazi TJIuj. Female genital mutilation: the role of medical professional organizations. Inturogynecol J. 2017;28(4):537–41.
Metadata
Title
Estimating utility value for female genital mutilation
Authors
Cyrus Alinia
Bakhtiar Piroozi
Fariba Jahanbin
Hossein Safari
Amjad Mohamadi-Bolbanabad
Ali Kazemi-Karyani
Ghobad Moradi
Fariba Farhadifar
Mohammad Ebrahimi
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08947-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Public Health 1/2020 Go to the issue

Research article

Parental drinking according to parental composition and adolescent binge drinking: findings from a nationwide high school survey in Japan

Study protocol

School-based interventions to promote personal and environmental hygiene practices among children in Pakistan: protocol for a mixed methods study

Research article

Feasibility and content validity of the PERF-FIT test battery to assess movement skills, agility and power among children in low-resource settings

Research article

Trajectories of vital status parameters and risk of mortality among acute organophosphorus poisoning patients – a latent class growth analysis

Research article

The role of the media on maternal confidence in provider HPV recommendation

Research article

Process evaluation of a workplace-based health promotion and exercise cluster-randomised trial to increase productivity and reduce neck pain in office workers: a RE-AIM approach