Background: Female genital schistosomiasis (FGS) is a neglected
manifestation of urogenital schistosomiasis caused by S. haematobium. The
disease presents with symptoms such as pelvic pain, vaginal discharge and
bleeding and menstruation disorders, and might lead to infertility and
pregnancy complications. The perspectives of women with FGS have
not been studied systematically. Methods: We performed a qualitative study
in the Ambanja district in Northwest Madagascar. FGS was diagnosed by
colposcopy. Seventy-six women with FGS participated either in a focus
group discussion (N=60) or in an individual semi-structured interview (N=
16). The data were analysed using Mayring´s qualitative content analysis.
The aim of the study was to understand knowledge, experiences, and
practices of women with FGS. Results: Knowledge on how the disease is
acquired varied and ideas on prevention remained vague. Patients suffered
from vaginal discharge and pelvic complaints. Some women expressed
unbearable pain during sexual intercourse and compared their pain to an
open wound being touched. FGS considerably impaired women´s daily
activities and their quality of life. Infertility led to resignation and
despair, conflicts with the partner and to social exclusion from the
community. Women fearing to sexually transmit FGS refrained from
partnership and sexual relations. Many women with FGS reported
stigmatisation. A coping strategy was to share strain with other women
having similar complaints. However, concealing FGS was a common behaviour
which led to social isolation and delayed health care seeking.
Conclusions: Our study underlines that FGS has an important impact on the
sexual health of women and on their social life in the community. Our
results highlight the importance of providing adequate health education
and structural interventions, such as the supply of water and the
provision of sanitation measures. Further, correct diagnosis and treatment
of FGS in adolescent girls and women should be available in all S.
haematobium-endemic areas. The interviewers carried out
semistructured interviews (SSI) and focus groups discussions (FGD) in the
villages Antsakoamanondro, Anjavimilay and Ankazokony located in the
Ambanja district. The interviews took place in a room of the school or in
a communal house in which privacy was guaranteed. No other persons were
allowed to attend the interview. Interviewers captured non-verbal
communication through written notes in a memo booklet. SSI and FGD were
audio recorded. We did not video record to avoid intimidation.
Sociodemographic information was retrieved from the corresponding
information from the RCT database. The authors revised the interview guide
based on the experiences with the first five SSI and the first FGD. SSI
and FGD were carried out between the 10th and the 17th of April 2020 in a
window of opportunity when COVID incidence in the region was low. Due to
time constraints in the context of COVID-19, we carried out in depth data
analysis only when all interviews where completed. Therefore, saturation
of the data could not be checked. We avoided respondent validation (member
checking) of the transcripts to prevent social desirability
bias. After transcription and translation, two authors
validated the translated transcripts by comparing them with the audio
recordings. Systematic
differences between FGD and SSI where not noted, thus both data sources
were analysed jointly. Rules to define coding and context units were
developed based on the qualitative content analysis: inductive categories were built thematically
by paraphrasing and generalising coding units, coding units were then
attributed to the deductive categories knowledge, attitudes and practice.
Then the text material was reduced in a two-step process into main and
secondary categories. The coding tree was built in an iterative manner
through the analysis of 20% of the material (3 SSI and 4 FGD). Intercoder
differences were brought together through discussions. The iterative
adaptation of the coding tree was finalised after the analysis of another
15% of the material (2 SSI and 3 FGD, Figure 1). Two authors carried out
category-based analysis of the remaining
interviews. Qualitative data were analysed
with Microsoft Excel (2010) using the methodological approach in Figure 1.
Methods and analysis were performed based on the COREQ recommendations for
standardised reporting of qualitative research (39). Statistical analysis of the sociodemographic
data was performed using SPSS (Version 16.0; SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois)
since data did not follow normal distribution median and range were
calculated.