4.6 Article

Traditional Male Circumcision in Uganda: A Qualitative Focus Group Discussion Analysis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045316

关键词

-

资金

  1. Gates Grand Challenges Exploration Phase I Grant
  2. University of Michigan Center for Global Health Junior Faculty Engagement Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The growing body of evidence attesting to the effectiveness of clinical male circumcision in the prevention of HIV/AIDS transmission is prompting the majority of sub-Saharan African governments to move towards the adoption of voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC). Even though it is recommended to consider collaboration with traditional male circumcision (TMC) providers when planning for VMMC, there is limited knowledge available about the TMC landscape and traditional beliefs. Methodology and Main Findings: During 2010-11 over 25 focus group discussions (FGDs) were held with clan leaders, traditional cutters, and their assistants to understand the practice of TMC in four ethnic groups in Uganda. Cultural significance and cost were among the primary reasons cited for preferring TMC over VMMC. Ethnic groups in western Uganda circumcised boys at younger ages and encountered lower rates of TMC related adverse events compared to ethnic groups in eastern Uganda. Cutting styles and post-cut care also differed among the four groups. The use of a single razor blade per candidate instead of the traditional knife was identified as an important and recent change. Participants in the focus groups expressed interest in learning about methods to reduce adverse events. Conclusion: This work reaffirmed the strong cultural significance of TMC within Ugandan ethnic groups. Outcomes suggest that there is an opportunity to evaluate the involvement of local communities that still perform TMC in the national VMMC roll-out plan by devising safer, more effective procedures through innovative approaches.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据