Title: Attitude and intention of migrant populations in the Netherlands regarding Female Genital
Mutilation/Cutting
Version: 1 Date: 16 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Review: “Attitude and intention of migrant populations in the Netherlands regarding Female
Genital Mutilation/Cutting”
Thank you for asking me to review this interesting article. I think it merits to be accepted but
with revisions. A have a view issues that are described below but my two main problems have
to do with methodology.
Firstly, why only use deductive conceptuel coding and refrain from doing thematic coding which
would give access to more in-depth and unpredictable meaning and experience?
And second: how did the authors strategize to minimize desirability bias. In other words,  a
group setting such as Focus Group is a public setting and therefore it can exacerbate opinions
and attitudes as well as bring participants to  not disclose, because of the presence of others,
their true attitude (their desire to have their daughter cut) because they know it is against the law
and social norms  in the Netherland context.   This point for me is central as it is an important
threat to the credibility (internal validity) of the data.
INTRODUCTION
“It is estimated that about 41,000 girls and women with FGM/C are living in the Netherlands
and over 4,200 girls are at risk of being cut between 2018–2036 [14].”
• How can authors refer to 2036 while we are now in 2022? Need to clarify here.
METHODS
• The sample of 55 participants is good for a qualitative study and the added in-depth interview
to allow saturation makes the credibility of the data stronger.
“This paper reports the results of this study in line with the COREQ criteria.”
• Please give a reference for the COREQ and explain in one sentence why it is important.
“Using purposive sampling, fifty-five male and female participants both first and second
generation from countries where FGM/C practiced were recruited through trusted intermediaries
and the researcher's own network.”
• What were the criteria used for the purposive sampling and provide the rational for their choice?
Explain and justify the gender distribution.
• Given that migrants are aware that FGM/C is nor a desired behavior in the context of the
Netherlands, it is important that authors explain the strategies and methods they used to minimize
desirability bias. This is a central limitation of the study.
• Authors need to explain why they used only deductive theoretical coding and did not use
thematic coding. In the results section authors specify that thematic saturation was attained but
according to the methods section thematic coding was not completed, only conceptual coding
using the Theory of Planned Behavior which by the way does not have a reference.
RESULTS
Interesting results. It would be interesting to describe how those who feel empowered to stop
their families to perform FGM are different from those who do not feel completely empowered to
protect their daughters. Do they have a similar education level? Are they financially independent
from their families? Do participants contribute financially to their families in their country of
origin in the same way?  We need to understand how they differ.
DISCUSSION
A comment about the usefulness of the TPB to analyze the data and its limits is needed in this
section.