↓ Skip to main content

Female genital mutilation and cutting: a systematic literature review of health professionals’ knowledge, attitudes and clinical practice

Overview of attention for article published in BMC International Health and Human Rights, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 348)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
Title
Female genital mutilation and cutting: a systematic literature review of health professionals’ knowledge, attitudes and clinical practice
Published in
BMC International Health and Human Rights, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12914-015-0070-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yvonne Zurynski, Premala Sureshkumar, Amy Phu, Elizabeth Elliott

Abstract

The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that 100-140 million girls and women have undergone female genital mutilation or cutting (FGM/C). FGM/C is an ancient cultural practice prevalent in 26 countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. With increased immigration, health professionals in high income countries including UK, Europe, North America and Australia care for women and girls with FGM/C. FGM/C is relevant to paediatric practice as it is usually performed in children, however, health professionals' knowledge, clinical practice, and attitudes to FGM/C have not been systematically described. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the literature to address this gap. The review was conducted according to guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42015015540, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ). Articles published in English 2000-2014 which used quantitative methods were reviewed. Of 159 unique articles, 18 met inclusion criteria. The methodological quality was poor - six studies met seven of the eight quality criteria. Study participants included mainly obstetricians, gynaecologists and midwives (15 studies). We found no papers that studied paediatricians specifically, but two papers reported on subgroups of paediatricians within a mixed sample of health professionals. The 18 articles covered 13 different countries: eight from Africa and 10 from high income countries. Most health professionals were aware of the practice of FGM/C, but few correctly identified the four FGM/C categories defined by WHO. Knowledge about FGM/C legislation varied: 25 % of professionals in a Sudanese study, 46 % of Belgian labour ward staff and 94 % of health professionals from the UK knew that FGM/C was illegal in their country. Health professionals from high income countries had cared for women or girls with FGM/C. The need to report children with FGM/C, or at risk of FGM/C, to child protection authorities was mentioned by only two studies. Further research is needed to determine health professionals' attitudes, knowledge and practice to support the development of educational materials and policy to raise awareness and to prevent this harmful practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Unknown 112 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 20%
Student > Bachelor 21 18%
Researcher 15 13%
Unspecified 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Other 27 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 24%
Social Sciences 16 14%
Unspecified 16 14%
Arts and Humanities 4 4%
Other 13 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 62. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2017.
All research outputs
#253,648
of 12,911,738 outputs
Outputs from BMC International Health and Human Rights
#1
of 348 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,273
of 352,908 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC International Health and Human Rights
#1
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,911,738 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 348 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,908 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.