Table 4. Multivariate analysis of factors related to practice and attitude toward FGM.
Favorable attitude for continuing FGM | Experienced FGM | ||
Women (n = 6,074)¥ | Men (n = 1,583) | Women (n = 7,048)§ | |
Odds Ratio (95% CI) | Odds Ratio (95% CI) | Odds Ratio (95% CI) | |
Ethnicity | |||
Wolof | Reference | Reference | Reference |
Other ethnic groups | 7.71 (3.76–15.83) ** | 5.22 (2.51–10.86)** | 7.61 (4.56–12.68) ** |
Place of residence | |||
Urban | Reference | Reference | Reference |
Rural | 1.20 (0.82–1.75) | 2.82 (1.09–7.31)* | 1.45(.95–2.20) |
Wealth | |||
Lowest | Reference | Reference | Reference |
Second | 0.98 (0.79–1.21) | 0.81 (0.48–1.39) | 1.08 (0.85–1.37) |
Middle | 1.14 (0.79–1.65) | 0.84 (0.38–1.87) | 0.67 (0.46–0.97)* |
Fourth | 0.74 (0.58–0.94)* | 0.50 (0.29–0.86)* | 0.63 (0.48–0.81)** |
Highest | 0.37 (0.28–0.50) ** | 0.52 (0.28–0.93)* | 0.45 (0.32–0.63)** |
Education | |||
No | Reference | Reference | Reference |
Koranic | 0.68 (0.52–0.88)** | 1.18 (0.65–2.16) | 1.36 (1.06–1.73)* |
Prim. Education | 0.60 (0.47–0.76)** | 0.67 (0.39–1.17) | 0.93 (0.75–1.14) |
Second. Education | 0.35 (0.27–0.46)** | 0.49 (0.29–0.82)** | 0.65 (0.52–0.82)** |
High (University) | 0.19 (0.11–0.33)** | 0.29 (0.16–0.52)** | 0.69 (0.39–1.23) |
Age | |||
15–19 | Reference | Reference | Reference |
20–24 | 0.78 (0.64–0.94)** | 0.77 (0.47–1.27) | 1.00 (0.84–1.20) |
25–29 | 0.67 (0.54–0.83)** | 0.69 (0.41–1.15) | 0.88 (0.70–1.10) |
30–34 | 0.65 (0.52–0.82)** | 0.64 (0.36–1.14) | 1.14 (0.89–1.47) |
35–39 | 0.47 (0.37–0.61)** | 1.05 (0.53–2.11) | 0.89 (0.66–1.20) |
40–44 | 0.72 (0.53–0.97)* | 0.57 (0.31–1.08) | 1.02 (0.74–1.38) |
45–49 | 0.54 (0.38–0.75)** | 1.00 (0.46–2.18) | 0.72 (0.52–1.00) |
50–54 | NA | 0.68 (0.30–1.50) | NA |
55–59 | NA | 0.76 (0.33–1.76) | NA |
Working Status | |||
Not working | Reference | Reference | Reference |
Working | 1.10 (0.92–1.31) | 0.92 (0.63–1.36) | 1.80 (1.51–2.15)** |
Interaction Term | |||
Rural*working | 1.78 (1.15–2.75)* | 0.94(0.41–2.18) | 1.27(0.83–1.93) |
p<.001;
p<.05.
This analysis was done among those women who know (heard of) the practice of FGM; we excluded women who did not know of FGM, did not belong to one of the 4 major ethnic groups, and the missing variables.
This analysis was done among those women who either approve or disapprove the continuation of FGM; we excluded women who did not know of FGM, did not belong to one of the 4 major ethnic groups, and the missing variables.