The prevalence and risk of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting among migrant women and girls in the Netherlands: An extrapolation method

PLoS One. 2020 Apr 9;15(4):e0230919. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230919. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the study was (I) to estimate the prevalence of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) and distribution of types of FGM/C among migrant girls and women in the Netherlands, and (II) to estimate the number of migrant girls at risk of being cut in the immediate future.

Methods: National population-based survey data regarding FGM/C prevalence were applied to female migrants in the Netherlands who migrated from 29 countries with available nationally representative data on FGM/C.

Results: As of January 1st 2018, there were 95,588 female migrants residing in the Netherlands, originating from 29 countries with available nationally representative data on FGM/C. Our findings suggest that about 41,000 women had undergone FGM/C, of which 37% had Type III (infibulation). In total 4,190 girls are estimated to be at risk of FGM/C in the next 20 years, of whom 394 were first-generation girls.

Conclusion: These findings show the urgency to develop appropriate strategies and policies to prevent FGM/C, to protect girls and women at risk of the practice, and to provide adequate services and support for those affected by FGM/C in the Netherlands.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Child
  • Circumcision, Female / statistics & numerical data*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Netherlands / epidemiology
  • Netherlands / ethnology
  • Prevalence
  • Risk Factors
  • Transients and Migrants / psychology
  • Transients and Migrants / statistics & numerical data*
  • Young Adult

Grants and funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Health Welfare and Sport of the Netherlands (VWS, Grant no 326523), https://www.government.nl/ministries/ministry-of-health-welfare-and-sport. The funder provided support in the form of salaries for author RK, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. Author AM provided expert advice without any payment during different stages of the manuscript writing.