The Applicability of the Theory of Planned Behavior for Research and Care of Female Genital Cutting.
The Applicability of the Theory of Planned Behavior for Research and Care of Female Genital Cutting.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s10508-020-01716-9
复制
发表时间：
2021-07
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Johansen REB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Johansen REB
我非常感谢被邀请为布雷迪、康纳、Chaisson、穆罕默德和罗宾逊（2019）的目标文章撰写评论，因为我发现这篇论文为女性生殖器切割（FGC）的研究带来了一股新鲜空气。我特别赞赏Brady等人的努力，他们制定了一种工具，支持提供者为遭受阴道封扎的女孩和妇女提供更好的保健服务，并提供了一个有用的理论框架和简单的模型，涵盖了关于阴道封扎决策的主要复杂性。布雷迪等人（2019）的目标文章提供了一个非常需要的视角，从更一维的理论来看，FGC是一种社会习俗，在过去几十年里主导了研究和行动主义（Johansen, 2019; Johansen, Diop, Laverack, & Leye, 2013; Mackie, 2000； UNICEF, 2005, 2013）。将女性生殖器切割作为一种社会习俗的理论对我们理解女性生殖器切割的社会层面有重要贡献。然而，这一理论有可能把个人和家庭完全描绘成由社会文化背景决定的。虽然它可以用来理解社会规范的变化如何导致行为的根本变化，但它并不适合探索变化的初始阶段或不遵循社会规范的个人和群体（Johansen, 2017c）。此外，我发现计划行为模型特别适合今天不断变化的FGC话语和实践的背景，这种情况既发生在FGC实践国家，也发生在FGC实践主要涉及来自FGC实践国家的移民的地方。将计划行为理论（TPB）应用于目标文章中提出的问题，即侨民的去通缩，似乎特别合适。在当代背景下，对FGC、插管和去插管的不同看法和观点并存，将该模型应用于研究和护理目的必须基于对该主题的更广泛的了解。概述这些细微差别是我在这篇评注中的主要贡献。我的评论是基于20多年来在研究、政策制定和干预方面从事与女性生殖器切割有关的问题的经验。从某种意义上说，布雷迪等人（2019）提供的模型回答了我16年前提出的一个问题，其修辞标题是“只是一个片段？”（Johansen, Barre, Sundby, & Vangen, 2004），强调了提供者对去通缩作为一个小而简单的手术的看法如何没有考虑到对那些受影响的人来说，这是一个多么深刻和复杂的决定。从那时起，服务有了显著改善（Johansen, 2017c; Johansen, Ziyada, Shell-Duncan, Kaplan, & Leye, 2018）。然而，我们仍然发现对去通缩的巨大抵制，服务使用率低，以及某些提供者的文化敏感性不足的情况（Johansen, 2019; Johansen & Ahmed, 2020; Ziyada, Lien, & Johansen, in press）。因此，我认为Brady等人提供的模型可以成为一种有用的工具，以弥合患者和提供者对充血和去充血方式之间的差距。因此，我的评论将在一定程度上被表述为Brady等人（2019）模型对我在该领域的实证经验的适用性的测试。我还将强调需要用该领域的主要细微差别和变化提供的见解来补充模型（Gele, Johansen, & Sundby, 2012; Johansen, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2017, a, b; 2019； Johansen等人，2013,2018;Vangen, Stoltenberg, Johansen, Sundby, & Stray - Pedersen, 2002）。我将在理论中每个主要类别的框架内讨论这些问题：态度、感知规范和感知控制……
I strongly appreciated being invited to write a Commentary on Brady, Connor, Chaisson, Mohamed, and Robinson’s (2019) Target Article as I found the paper to be a breath of fresh air into research on female genital cutting (FGC). I particularly appreciated Brady et al.’s efforts to formulate a tool that supports providers in offering improved health care for girls and women subjected to infibulation and provides a useful theoretical framework and simple model that encompasses the major complexities regarding FGC decision making. Brady et al.’s (2019) Target Article offers a much needed broadening of perspective from the more one-dimensional theory of FGC as a social convention that has dominated research and activism over the last decades (Johansen, 2019; Johansen, Diop, Laverack, & Leye, 2013; Mackie, 2000; UNICEF, 2005, 2013). The theory of FGC as a social convention contributed significantly to our understanding of the social aspects of FGC. This theory, however, risks portraying individuals and families as totally determined by sociocultural context. And while it can be used to understand how a change in social norms can lead to fundamental change in behavior, it is not well suited to explore the initial stages of change or individuals and groups who do not follow social norms (Johansen, 2017c). Furthermore, I find the model of planned behavior particularly suited to today’s contexts of changing FGC discourses and practices, which takes place both in FGC practicing countries and in places where the practice mainly concerns migrants from FGC practicing countries. It seems particularly pertinent to apply the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to the issue raised in the Target Article, that of deinfibulation in diaspora. In a contemporary context, where different perceptions and views of FGC, infibulation, and deinfibulation coexist, the application of this model for research and care purposes must be based on a broader knowledge of the topic. Outlining some of these nuances is my main contribution in this Commentary. My comments are based on experience from more than 20 years of working on issue related to FGC, in research, policy development, and interventions. In a sense, the model provided by Brady et al.(2019) answers a concern I outlined 16 years ago with the rhetorical title “Just a Snip?”(Johansen, Barre, Sundby, & Vangen, 2004), highlighting how the providers’ perception of deinfibulation as a minor and uncomplicated surgery failed to take into account how profound and complex a decision it was for those affected. Since then, services have improved significantly (Johansen, 2017c; Johansen, Ziyada, Shell-Duncan, Kaplan, & Leye, 2018). However, we still find a huge resistance to deinfibulation, low usage of services, as well as cases of insufficient culturally sensitivity from certain providers (Johansen, 2019; Johansen & Ahmed, 2020; Ziyada, Lien, & Johansen, in press). Thus, I think the model provided by Brady et al. can be a useful tool to bridge the gap between the way in which infibulation and deinfibulation is perceived by patient and provider. My Commentary will thus partly be formulated as a test of the applicability of Brady et al.’s (2019) model on my empirical experiences in the field. I will also highlight the need to complement the model with insights provided by major nuances and variations in the field (Gele, Johansen, & Sundby, 2012; Johansen, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2017a, b; 2019; Johansen et al., 2013, 2018; Vangen, Stoltenberg, Johansen, Sundby, & Stray‐Pedersen, 2002). I will discuss these within the framework of each of the main categories in the theory: attitude, perceived norms, and perceived control, as well …
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
1.1
作者：
Lunde, Ingvild Bergom;Sagbakken, Mette;Johansen, R. Elise B.
通讯作者：
Johansen, R. Elise B.
影响因子：
--
作者：
Elmusharaf, Susan;Elhadi, Nagla;Almroth, Lars
通讯作者：
Almroth, Lars
影响因子：
1.8
作者：
Berg RC;Denison EM
通讯作者：
Denison EM
影响因子：
2.2
作者：
Johansen, Ragnhild Elise B.
通讯作者：
Johansen, Ragnhild Elise B.
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Johansen, R. Elise B.
通讯作者：
Johansen, R. Elise B.