Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wtssw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-14T13:40:23.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating geographic variations in the determinants of attitude towards the practice of female genital mutilation in Nigeria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Ezra Gayawan Open the ORCID record for Ezra Gayawan [Opens in a new window]  and
Rukayat Salewa Lateef
Ezra Gayawan*
Affiliation:
Biostatistics and Spatial Statistics Laboratory, Department of Statistics, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria
Rukayat Salewa Lateef
Affiliation:
Biostatistics and Spatial Statistics Laboratory, Department of Statistics, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria
*
*Corresponding author. Email: egayawan@futa.edu.ng
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Female genital mutilation (FGM) has persisted in Nigeria despite the very harmful effects on its victims. Massive inequality in the demographic and socioeconomic status of the Nigerian populace, coupled with marked differences in cultural values, have led to lopsided patterns of most health indicators based on the geographical location. The risk factors of health indicators are equally expected to vary according to location. This study aimed to explain the spatial variations in the risk factors for female cutting in Nigeria. Data were from the geo-referenced 2013 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey. The objective was to estimate the spatially varying relationships of the factors influencing women’s attitude towards female cutting in Nigeria and to identify how the variables exact influence across the states using geographically weighted logistic regression analysis – a technique that allows for spatially varying relationships among variables to be established. The results showed that women’s higher educational level and higher household wealth lowered the desire for continuation of FGM everywhere in the country, but the effects of most other variables varied in direction, strength and magnitude. The findings suggest the use of local approaches to address the factors that encourage the continuation of female cutting in Nigeria.

Keywords

NigeriaFemale Genital MutilationGeographically Weighted Regression
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 51 , Issue 5 , September 2019 , pp. 645 - 657
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

28 Too Many (2016) Country Profile: FGM in Nigeria. 28 Too Many, Abuja, Nigeria,Google Scholar
Achia, TNO (2014) Spatial modelling and mapping of female genital mutilation in Kenya. BMC Public Health 14(274).Google Scholar
Adebayo, SB, Gayawan, E, Ujuju, C and Ankomah, A (2013) Modelling geographical variations and determinants of use of modern family planning methods among women of reproductive age in Nigeria. Journal of Biosocial Science 45(1), 57–77.Google Scholar
Axinn, WG and Yabiku, ST (2001) Socio change, the social organization of families, and fertility limitations. American Journal of Sociology 106, 1219–1261.Google Scholar
Foster, C (1992) On the trail of a taboo: female circumcision in the Islamic world. Contemporary Review 35, 244–249.Google Scholar
Fotheringham, AS, Brunsdon, C and Charlton, M (2002) Geographically Weighted Regression: The Analysis of Spatially Varying Relationships. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
Freymeyer, RH and Johnson, BE (2007) An exploration of attitudes towards female genital cutting in Nigeria. Population Research and Policy Review 26, 69–83.Google Scholar
Gayawan, E Adarabioyo, MI, Okewole, DM, Fashoto, SG and Ukaegbu, JC (2016) Geographical variations in infant and child mortality in West Africa: a geo-additive discrete-time survival modelling. Genus 72(5), doi: 10.1186/s41118-016-0009-8.Google Scholar
Gayawan, E and Turra, CM (2015) Mapping the determinants of child mortality in Nigeria: estimates from mortality index. African Geographical Review 34(3), 269–293.Google Scholar
Jeremiah, I, Kalio, DGB and Akani, C (2014) The pattern of female genital mutilation in Port Harcourt, Southern Nigeria. International Journal of Tropical Disease and Health 4, 469–476.Google Scholar
Kandala, NB, Kinyoki, D, Sarki, A, Gathara, D, Komba, P and Shellduncan, B (2017) Modeling and Mapping of Girls’ Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) in the Context of Economic, Social, and Regional Disparities: Kenya Demographic and Health Surveys 1998–2014. Population Council, New York.Google Scholar
Kandala, NB and Komba, P (2015) Geographic variation of female genital mutilation and legal enforcement in Sub-Saharan Africa: a case study of Senegal. American Jounal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 92, 838–847.Google Scholar
Kandala, NB, Nwakeze, N and Kandala, SNI (2009) Spatial distribution of female genital mutilation in Nigeria. American Jounal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 81, 784–792.Google Scholar
Klouman, E, Manongi, R and Klepp, KI (2005) Self-reported and observed female genital cutting in rural Tanzania: associated demographic factors, HIV and sexually transmitted infections. Tropical Medicine and International Health 10, 105–115.Google Scholar
Mandara, MU (2004) Female genital mutilation in Nigeria. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 84, 291–298.Google Scholar
Mberu, BU (2017) Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in Nigeria: A Scoping Review. Population Council, New York.Google Scholar
NPC and ICF International (2014) Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey 2013. National Population Commission [Nigeria] and ICF International, Abuja, Nigeria and Rockville, MD, USA.Google Scholar
NPC, NMCP and ICF International (2012) Nigeria Malaria Indicator Survey 2010. National Population Commission, National Malaria Control Programme and ICF International Abuja, Nigeria.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M (1999) Sex and Social Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Obi, S. N (2004) Female genital cutting in south-east Nigeria. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 84, 183–184.Google Scholar
Orubuloye, IO, Caldwell, P and Caldwell, V (2000) Female “circumcision” among the Yoruba of southwest Nigeria: the beginning of change. In Shell-Duncan B and Yernland Y (eds) Female Circumcision in Africa: Culture, Controversy, and Change. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, CO, USA, pp. 73–94.Google Scholar
Population Reference Bureau (2017) Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Data and Trend. Population Reference Bureau,Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Rossem, RV, Meekers, D and Gage, AJ (2015) Women’s position and attitudes towards female genital mutilation in Egypt: a secondary analysis of the Egypt Demographic and Health Surveys, 1995–-2014. BMC Public Health 15(874).Google Scholar
Setegn, T, Lakew, Y and Deribe, K (2016) Geographic variation and factors associated with female genital mutilation among reproductive age women in Ethiopia: a national population based survey. PLoS One 11(1), e0145329.Google Scholar
Shell-Duncan, B, Wander, K, Hernlund, Y and Moreau, A (2011) Dynamics of change in the practice of female genital cutting in Senegambia: testing predictions of social convention theory. Genus 73, 1275–1283.Google Scholar
Simister, J (2010) Domestic violence and female genital mutilation in Kenya: effects of ethnicity and education. Journal of Family Violence 25, 247–257.Google Scholar
UNICEF (2013) Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A Statistical Overview and Exploration of the Dynamics of Change. UNICEF, New York.Google Scholar
UNICEF (2016) Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A Global Concern. UNICEF, New York.Google Scholar
Van der Kwaar, A (1992) Female circumcision and gender identity: a questionable alliance? Social Science & Medicine 35, 777–787.Google Scholar
Yerima, TF and Atidoga, DF (2014) Eradicating the practice of femalecircumcision/female genital mutilation in Nigeria within the context of human rights. Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization 28, 129–140.Google Scholar