How to ensure policies and interventions rely on strong supporting facts to improve women’s health: The case of female genital cutting, using Rosling’s Factfulness approach

Abstract

Rosling et al’s book Factfulness aims to inspire people to use strong supporting facts in their decision‐making, with 10 rules of thumb to fight dramatic instincts. In this paper, the Factfulness framework is applied to female genital cutting (FGC), in order to identify possible biases and promote evidence‐based thinking in studies on FGC, clinical guidelines on management of FGC, and interventions aimed at abolishing FGC. The Factfulness framework helps to acknowledge that FGC is not a uniform practice and helps address that variability. This framework also highlights the importance of multidisciplinarity to understand causalities of the FGC issue, which the authors argue is essential. This paper highlights the fact that FGC is a dynamic practice, with changes in the practice that are ongoing, and that those changes are different in different contexts. The “zero tolerance” discourses on FGC fail to acknowledge this. Factfulness encourages us to be more critical of methodologies used in the area of FGC, for example when estimating girls at risk of FGC in migration contexts. Factfulness provides the tools to calculate risks rather than judgments based on fear. This may help limit stigmatization of women with FGC and to allocate resources to health problems of migrant women based on real risks. The framework also calls for more research and production of less biased facts in the field of FGC, in order to improve interventions aimed at abolishing FGC, and clinical guidelines for the treatment of FGC. Factfulness is a useful and structured foundation for reflection over constructs, biases and disputes surrounding FGC, and can help improve the quality of future evidence‐based interventions and education that address the actual needs of women with FGC and girls at risk of FGC.