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