No relationship found between female genital cutting and intimate partner violence across six sub-Saharan African countries

Figures & data

Figure 1. Prevalence of IPV and FGC by ethnic group and country.

Figure 2. Women’s IPV experience by FGC status (n31,170).

Table 1. IPV experience: Three level logistic regression models analysing factors associated with women’s IPV experience in past year.

		Model 1				Model 2				Model 3				Model 4
		OR	95% CI		p-value	OR	95% CI		p-value	OR	95% CI		p-value	OR	95% CI		p-value
Individual variables	cons	0.16	0.11	−0.24	0.000	0.15	0.10	−0.23	0.000	0.10	0.07	−0.13	0.000	0.09	0.07	−0.13	0.000
FGC status (No FGC)	FGC					1.15	1.05	−1.27	0.003					1.10	0.99	−1.21	0.067
Household wealth (Poorest)	Poorer									1.11	0.99	−1.25	0.080	1.12	0.99	−1.26	0.070
	Middle									1.01	0.89	−1.15	0.846	1.02	0.89	−1.15	0.805
	Richer									0.95	0.83	−1.09	0.446	0.95	0.83	−1.09	0.494
	Richest									0.74	0.63	−0.87	0.000	0.75	0.63	−0.88	0.000
Household location (Urban)	Rural									0.93	0.84	−1.03	0.177	0.93	0.84	−1.03	0.179
Woman’s age										1.00	0.99	−1.00	0.168	1.00	0.99	−1.00	0.117
Woman’s education (None)	Primary									1.10	0.99	−1.23	0.084	1.10	0.99	−1.23	0.076
	Secondary +									0.88	0.77	−1.01	0.067	0.89	0.78	−1.02	0.087
Marriage type (Monog)	Polygamous									1.20	1.09	−1.32	0.000	1.20	1.09	−1.32	0.000
Husband drinks alcohol (No)	Yes									2.10	1.92	−2.29	0.004	2.10	1.93	−2.30	0.004
Father beat mother (No)	Yes									2.10	1.92	−2.30	0.000	2.10	1.92	−2.29	0.000
No. of controlling behaviours wife experiences (0–5)										1.70	1.66	−1.75	0.000	1.70	1.66	−1.75	0.000
No. of HH decisions wife involved in (0–4)										0.98	0.95	−1.01	0.146	0.98	0.95	−1.01	0.147
Contextual variable
Average number of IPV justifications agreed with by men in ethnic group										1.15	0.93	−1.43	0.200	1.13	0.91	−1.41	0.257
		β	S.E.			β	S.E.			β	S.E.			β	S.E.
Level 2 variance (Ethnic group)		0.354	0.070			0.353	0.070			0.217	0.047			0.213	0.046
ICC (%)		9.5				9.7				6.2				6.1
MOR		0.558				0.564				0.443				0.438
PCV (%)		ref				−2.3				38.5				1.8
Level 3 variance (Country)		0.215	0.146			0.226	0.153			0.082	0.058			0.082	0.061
ICC (%)		5.6				5.8				2.3				2.1
MOR		0.440				0.452				0.272				0.262
PCV (%)		ref				−5.1				63.7				7.3

Level 1: Individual women n31,170, Level 2: Ethnic groups n73, Level 3: Countries n6.

ICC: Intra-class correlation (proportion of the variation found at that level); MOR: median odds ratio (expresses community variance on an odds scale); PCV: proportional change in variance.

Model 1: null model.

Model 2: mull model plus FGC status.

Model 3: control variables, level 1 and level 2, excluding FGC status.

Model 4: control variables, level 1 and level 2, including FGC status.

Figure 3. Women’s support for FGC by IPV experience (n31,067).

Table 2. Three level logistic regression models analysing factors associated with women’s agreement that FGC should be continued.

		Model 1				Model 2				Model 3				Model 4				Model 5
		OR	95% CI		p-value	OR	95% CI		p-value	OR	95% CI		p-value	OR	95% CI		p-value	OR	95% CI		p-value
Individual variables	cons	0.18	0.09	−0.35	0.000	0.17	0.09	−0.34	0.000	0.08	0.03	−0.19	0.000	0.08	0.03	−0.19	0.000	0.09	0.05	−0.14	0.000
IPV during last 12 months (No)	Yes					1.18	1.07	−1.31	0.001					1.08	0.97	−1.21	0.166	1.08	0.97	−1.21	0.157
Household wealth (poorest)	Poorer									0.86	0.78	−0.95	0.004	0.86	0.78	−0.95	0.004	0.86	0.78	−0.95	0.004
	Middle									0.75	0.67	−0.84	0.000	0.75	0.67	−0.84	0.000	0.75	0.67	−0.84	0.000
	Richer									0.72	0.63	−0.82	0.000	0.72	0.63	−0.82	0.000	0.72	0.64	−0.82	0.000
	Richest									0.60	0.51	−0.70	0.000	0.60	0.51	−0.70	0.000	0.60	0.51	−0.70	0.000
Household location (Urban)	Rural									1.08	0.98	−1.19	0.144	1.08	0.98	−1.19	0.138	1.08	0.98	−1.19	0.113
Woman’s age										0.99	0.98	−0.99	0.000	0.99	0.98	−0.99	0.000	0.99	0.98	−0.99	0.000
Woman’s education (None)	Primary									0.74	0.66	−0.82	0.000	0.74	0.66	−0.82	0.000	0.74	0.67	−0.82	0.000
	Secondary +									0.64	0.56	−0.72	0.000	0.64	0.56	−0.72	0.000	0.64	0.56	−0.72	0.000
Number of daughters (None)	One or more									0.97	0.89	−1.05	0.430	0.97	0.89	−1.05	0.414	0.97	0.89	−1.05	0.415
Woman’s religion (Muslim)	Christian									0.50	0.44	−0.56	0.000	0.50	0.44	−0.56	0.000	0.51	0.45	−0.58	0.000
	Other/none									1.00	0.81	−1.22	0.959	1.00	0.81	−1.22	0.961	1.02	0.83	−1.25	0.885
FGC status (No FGC)	FGC									8.75	7.47	−10.25	0.000	8.74	7.46	−10.24	0.000	8.43	7.38	−9.63	0.000
Exposure to mass media (None)	Infrequent									0.79	0.71	−0.87	0.000	0.79	0.72	−0.87	0.000	0.79	0.72	−0.87	0.000
	Frequent									0.76	0.69	−0.84	0.000	0.76	0.69	−0.84	0.000	0.77	0.70	−0.84	0.000
No. of controlling behaviours wife experiences (0–5)										1.00	0.97	−1.03	0.975	0.99	0.97	−1.02	0.706	0.99	0.97	−1.02	0.716
No. of HH decisions wife involved in (0–4)										0.98	0.95	−1.00	0.075	0.98	0.95	−1.00	0.077	0.98	0.95	−1.00	0.092
No. of IPV justifications wife agrees with (0–5)										1.14	1.12	−1.16	0.000	1.14	1.12	−1.16	0.000	1.14	1.11	−1.16	0.000
Contextual variables
FGC prevalence in ethnic group (%)									1.02	1.01	−1.02	0.000	1.02	1.01	−1.02	0.000	1.02	1.01	−1.02	0.000
Years since FGC became illegal																	0.89	0.84	−0.94	0.000
		β	S.E.			β	S.E.			β	S.E.			β	S.E.			β	S.E.
Level 2 variance		2.46	0.449			2.444	0.447			0.566	0.116			0.568	0.116			0.570	0.116
ICC (%)		42.8				42.6				14.7				14.7				14.8
MOR		1.490				1.485				0.715				0.716				0.717
PCV (%)		ref				0.7				76.8				−0.4				−0.4
Level 3 variance		0.485	0.418			0.499	0.424			1.057	0.647			1.056	0.647			0.215	0.159
ICC (%)		7.8				6.8				21.5				21.5				5.3
MOR		0.662				0.613				0.977				0.976				0.440
PCV (%)		ref				14.2				−154.1				0.1				79.6

Level 1: n 31,067, Level 2: n73, Level 3: n6.

ICC: Intra-class correlation (proportion of the variation found at that level), MOR: median odds ratio (expresses community variance on an odds scale) PCV (proportional change in variance).

Model 1: null model, Model 2: + IPV experience, Model 3: controlling variables excluding IPV experience, Model 4: + IPV experience, Model 5 + Level 3 contextual variable.

Data availability statement

The datasets used for this study are publicly available at www.dhgprogram.com.