↓ 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 Public Health, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • 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 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 Mendeley
Title
Female genital mutilation and cutting: a systematic literature review of health professionals’ knowledge, attitudes and clinical practice
Published in
BMC Public Health, 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 248 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 246 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 17%
Student > Bachelor 35 14%
Researcher 26 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 8%
Other 11 4%
Other 37 15%
Unknown 77 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 49 20%
Social Sciences 25 10%
Psychology 9 4%
Unspecified 5 2%
Other 24 10%
Unknown 81 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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
#706,351
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#725
of 17,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,794
of 394,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#9
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,511 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 394,839 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 237 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.