Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparing some key baseline and endline household survey findings

From: Eradicating female genital mutilation and cutting in Tanzania: an observational study

Project Outcomes KAP Variables HHS Baseline n = 1013 HHS Endline n = 1139 P Value PRRa CI
Community empowerment Those who knew FGM effects 54 % (536) 72 %(822) <0.001 1.333 1.50–2.30
Those in favour of FGM eradicated 62 % (627) 74.4 %(847) <0.001 1.170 1.10–1.240
Those who had participated in anti FGM campaign activities 23.2 % (235) 24.1 % (274) 0.6402 1.037 0.80–1.210
ARP Approach Those who thought culture could still be maintained without FGM 16.6 % (168) 30 % (302) <0.001 1.600 0.65–1.34
Those who thought girls can be prepared for marriage without undergoing FGM 30.2 % (306) 39.2 %(447) <0.001 1.298 1.154–1.46
Alternate IGA for FGM practitioners Those who knew FGM practitioners that left practice and engaged in other IGA 28.4 % (288) - - -  
  1. aPRR – Prevalence rate Ratio showing the number of times follow-up rates are higher/lower relative to the baseline
  2. IGA – Income generating activities