Literature DB >> 26652275

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

Yvonne Zurynski1,2, Premala Sureshkumar3,4, Amy Phu5,6, Elizabeth Elliott7,8,9.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSION: 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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26652275      PMCID: PMC4676087          DOI: 10.1186/s12914-015-0070-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Int Health Hum Rights        ISSN: 1472-698X


Background

The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that between 100–140 million girls and women have undergone female genital mutilation or cutting (FGM/C) [1]. FGM/C is usually performed in children aged between 1 month and 15 years, and is therefore relevant to paediatric practice [2]. There are different types of FGM/C procedures ranging from “nicking” or “pricking” the prepuce, to complete removal of the clitoris or infibulation, when the vaginal opening is narrowed by cutting and repositioning the inner or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris [1, 3]. FGM/C is an ancient cultural practice, predating both the Bible and the Koran and has no basis in religion [4]. FGM/C is currently customary in over 26 countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, with a prevalence of 70 % or more reported in 11 African countries including Somalia, Egypt, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Mali, Eritrea, and Ethiopia [2]. There are no medical or health indications for FGM/C. FGM/C is harmful and immediate complications include bleeding, pain, infections and significant psychological trauma [1, 2, 5, 6]. Long term complications include recurrent urinary infections, birthing difficulties including need for emergency caesarean section, third-degree vaginal tears, and ongoing psychological and sexual problems [1, 2, 4–8]. All forms of FGM/C whether performed by medical practitioners or other “cultural practitioners” are illegal in at least 20 countries in Africa including Kenya, Nigeria and Egypt [9], and in high income countries such as Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Canada, many European Countries, and 15 of the 52 States of the USA have law where parents/guardians and circumcisers are subject to prosecution [4–6, 10–12]. Furthermore, it is illegal to organise for FGM/C procedures to be performed overseas in children resident in many of these high income countries [5–7, 10, 12]. FGM/C is a child protection issue and in many countries, mandatory reporting to authorities is required by health professionals who identify children who have undergone FGM/C or who are believed to be at risk of FGM/C [4–7, 10–12]. FGM/C violates the UN Charter of Human Rights, the UN Charter of Women’s Rights, the Charter of the Rights of the Child, and the Charter of Rights of the African Child [13-16]. Medicalization of FGM/C refers to the procedure being performed in a medical setting, often by a doctor [17, 18]. A recent study from the UK reported that of 27 girls who had FGM/C, it was known to have been performed by a doctor in a medical setting in 71 % [19]. Medicalization is often supported by those who practice FGM/C because they believe it offers “harm reduction” by preventing immediate medical complications [17, 18]. However, the involvement of healthcare providers in FGM/C in any setting has been condemned by the WHO because it does not prevent long-term medical or psychological complications and legitimises continuation of FGM/C in some communities [1, 3]. Many women with FGM/C and girls at risk of FGM/C are now living in the UK, Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand due to the increasing immigration from countries where FGM/C is prevalent [4–7, 10–12]. The prevalence of FGM/C in girls and women living in these countries is unknown, because procedures tend to be organised by families in private, often outside the mainstream health system, and information about FGM/C is not routinely collected or coded in medical records. Furthermore, girls may be taken for FGM/C to the family’s country of origin [5]. Thus, FGM/C may only become apparent to health professionals when girls or young women present with complications, or when women need obstetric and gynaecological care [5, 7, 20]. As the immigrant communities in high income countries become larger and increasingly multicultural and ethnically diverse, health professionals are more likely to see women and girls with FGM/C or at risk of FGM/C, in their clinical practice. In this systematic review of the literature we aimed to identify, describe and analyse publications reporting the knowledge, attitudes and clinical practices related to FGM/C among health professionals internationally. We aimed to answer the following questions: Do health professionals have experience of FGM/C in their clinical practice? Do health professionals have adequate knowledge about FGM/C categories, complications, and high risk groups and do they have access to education and training opportunities? Do health professionals have adequate knowledge about laws relating to FGM/C? What are the attitudes and beliefs of health professionals towards the practice of FGM/C?

Methods

Systematic review of the literature using the terms “female genital mutilation”, “female genital cutting” or “female circumcision” combined with MESH terms: “Paediatrics”, “Child Health” and keywords: “paediatrician”, “practice guidelines,” “attitudes” “knowledge” and “education” was conducted. Databases including MEDLINE, CINHAL and SCOPUS were searched applying limits: year of publication 2000–2014; human; English language. 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 Registerof Systematic Reviews (CRD42015015540, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/). The titles and abstracts of all articles identified through the literature search were scanned for relevance. Documents were selected for full review if they specifically mentioned FGM/C, and reported primary data on health professionals’ knowledge attitudes and clinical practice related to FGM/C.

Definitions

WHO definitions of the 4 types of FGM/C: Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris). Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are “the lips” that surround the vagina). Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris. Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area. Other definitions: De-infibulation: is the surgical procedure to open up the closed vagina of FGM type 3 and is often performed on the wedding night, and prior to childbirth. Reinfibulation: The re-stitching of FGM type III to reclose the vagina after childbirth.

Inclusion criteria

Design

Human observational studies, including cross sectional, cohort or population-based studies that used quantitative methodology.

Participants

Health professionals including paediatricians, obstetricians, gynaecologists, family doctors, nurses, midwives or students of medicine, nursing, midwifery or other health disciplines.

Outcomes

Measures of knowledge about FGM/C, attitudes/beliefs towards FGM/C and experience of FGM/C in clinical practice.

Exclusion criteria

Publications reporting patient or community knowledge or attitudes Publications that used qualitative study designs Publications reporting on genital cosmetic procedures Foreign language publications

Quality assessment

Publications were assessed and scored for representativeness and survey tool validity. Quality measures included: sample description (1 point for each detail provided: profession, age, gender of respondents and response rate); sampling method (description of site/setting – 1 point, sampling procedure described - 1 point); and survey validity (1 point if survey pre-tested and 1 point if the survey was reviewed by content experts), for a maximum score of eight points.

Data extraction and analysis

Data were extracted by two researchers independently (YZ, AP). Any inconsistencies were resolved by checking full-text versions of the documents and discussion with the review team. All proportions reported in the original documents have been rounded up to whole percentages for ease of reading and interpretation.

Results

One hundred and fifty nine potentially relevant articles were identified. After exclusion of duplicates there remained 122 unique publications. Editorials, letters, notes and publications that did not have abstracts (mainly opinion pieces) were excluded, leaving 109 abstracts for screening. Of the 109 abstracts screened, 67 did not study health professionals and 19 were reviews which did not include primary data. Twenty-three full text articles were reviewed in detail and 5 of these were excluded because they used qualitative methods, leaving 18 articles for analysis (Fig. 1) [20-37].
Fig. 1

Identification and selection of studies for review

Identification and selection of studies for review Of the 18 publications, eight originated from low-middle income countries in Africa, mainly from Nigeria and Egypt (Table 1). Ten came from high income countries: five from Europe, three from the UK, one from Australia/New Zealand (ANZ), and one from the USA (Table 1). We found no studies that specifically focussed on paediatricians. Four studies reported on mixed samples, which included paediatricians, but only two of these analysed paediatricians as a separate subgroup (Table 1). Seventeen studies reported on health professionals’ knowledge, 13 on practice and 12 on attitudes, with only four studies from high income countries reporting on health professionals’ attitudes (Table 1).
Table 1

Characteristics of studies included in the review

ReferenceCountryStudy design and methodDomains assessedSampleNResponse rate
AttitudesKnowledgePractice
Publications from African Countries
 Ashimi et al. 2014 [21]NigeriaCross-sectional; self- administered surveyYesYesNoNurses35084 %
 Kaplan et al. 2013 [22]GambiaCross-sectional; survey administered face to faceYesYesYesNurses, community nurses and midwives468NR
 Ali et al. 2012 [23]SudanSurvey administered via face to face interviewYesYesYesMidwives (~63 % of midwives were illiterate) 157NR
 Dike et al. 2012 [24]NigeriaCross-sectional surveyYesYesNoStudent nurses and midwives26995.7 %
 Rasheed et al. 2011 [25]EgyptCross sectional; self- administered surveyYesNoYes aNurses; junior and senior physicians
 Refaat 2009 [26]EgyptCross-sectional SurveyYesYesYes aPhysicians19368 %
 Mostafa et al. 2006 [27]EgyptRandom sample; SurveyYesYesNo5th year medical students33090.3 %
 Onuh et al. 2006 [28]NigeriaCross-sectional; SurveyYesYesYesNurses practising in a hospital18294.3 %
Publications from “Western Countries”
 Caroppo et al. 2014 [29]ItalyPurposive sample; Self-administered surveyNoYesYesPhysicians, social workers, psychologists, “health assistants” working in an asylum seeker centre41100 %
 Purchase et al. 2013 [30]UKCross-sectional; surveyNoYesNoObstetricians and Gynaecologists60720.1 %
 Relph et al. 2013 [31]UKCross-sectional; SurveyYesYesNoHealth care professionals7992.9 %
 Moeed et al. 2012 [20]Australia and New ZealandCross- sectional; SurveyNoYesYesObstetricians and Gynaecologists and trainees56418.5 %
FGM/C workers3491.9 %
 Hess et al. 2010 [32]USARandomised SurveyYesYesYesNurse-midwives24340.3 %
 Kaplan-Marcusan et al. 2009 [33]SpainCross-sectional; Survey at two time points (2001 and 2004)YesYesYes bPrimary health care professionals280 (2001)80 % (2001)
296 (2004)62 % (2004)
 Leye 2008 [34]BelgiumCross-sectional; SurveyYesYesYesGynaecologists and trainees33346 %
 Zaidi et al. 2007 [35]UKCross-sectional; SurveyNoYesYesLabour ward staff45100 %
 Tamaddon et al. 2006 [36]SwedenCross-sectional; SurveyNoYesYes bHealth professionals79628 %
 Jager et al. 2002 [37]SwitzerlandCross-sectional; SurveyNoYesYesObstetricians and gynaecologists45439.1 %

aSample included paediatricians but did not report on paediatricians separately;

bSample included paediatricians and paediatricians were compared with other professionals;

NA Not applicable

NR Not Reported

Characteristics of studies included in the review aSample included paediatricians but did not report on paediatricians separately; bSample included paediatricians and paediatricians were compared with other professionals; NA Not applicable NR Not Reported Publications were scored according to our pre-determined quality assessment matrix (Table 2). Only one publication scored the maximum eight points. Twelve (67 %) papers described the age of the participants and 11(61 %) reported gender. A description of the setting was lacking in two studies, sampling procedures were not described in three. (Table 2). Six (33 %) of the surveys were pre-tested, five (22 %) were reviewed by content experts, and two (11 %) were both pre-tested and reviewed by a content expert. Nine studies did not report any survey validation. Most of the studies are unlikely to be representative. Three studies from high income countries were set in specialist facilities serving migrant communities in which FGM/C is common and the health professionals surveyed had frequent experience with women affected by FGM/C.[29, 31, 35] Two studies did not report a response rate and in 5 studies the response rate was <50 %, (Table 1).
Table 2

Assessment of methodological quality of studies included in the review

ReferenceRepresentativenessSurvey validityScore out of 8
Profession of respondents describedAge or years of practiceGenderSettingSampling procedureResponse rate reportedPre-testExpert review
Publications from African Countries
 Ashimi et al. 2014 [21]YesYesYesYesYesYesYesNo7
 Kaplan et al. 2013 [22]YesYesYesYesNoNoYesYes7
 Ali et al. 2012 [23]YesYesNoa YesNoNoNoNo3
 Dike et al. 2012 [24]YesYesYesYesYesYesYesNo7
 Rasheed et al. 2011 [25]YesNoNoYesNoYesNoNo3
 Refaat 2009 [26]YesYesYesNoYesYesNoNo5
 Mostafa et al. 2006 [27]YesYesYesYesYesYesNoNo6
 Onuh et al. 2006 [28]YesYesYesYesYesYesYesNo7
Publications from “Western Countries”
 Caroppo et al. 2014 [29]YesNoYesYesYesYesNoNo5
 Purchase et al. 2013 [30]YesYesNoYesYesYesNoNo5
 Relph et al. 2013 [31]YesYesYesYesYesYesYesNo7
 Moeed et al. 2012 [20]YesNoNoNoYesYesNoNo3
 Hess et al. 2010 [32]YesYesYesYesYesYesNoYes7
 Kaplan-Marcusan et al. 2009 [33]YesYesYesYesYesYesNoNo6
 Leye 2008 [34]YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes8
 Zaidi et al. 2007 [35]YesNoNoYesYesYesNoYes5
 Tamaddon et al. 2006 [36]YesNoNoYesYesYesNoYes5
 Jager et al. 2002 [37]YesNoNoYesYesYesNoNo4

“Yes” indicates that this criterion was adequately reported in the paper

aThe sample consisted of “midwives” and it is assumed that all would have been female given the cultural setting for this study

Assessment of methodological quality of studies included in the review “Yes” indicates that this criterion was adequately reported in the paper aThe sample consisted of “midwives” and it is assumed that all would have been female given the cultural setting for this study Do health professionals have experience with FGM/C in their clinical practice? Five surveys in high income countries reported that health professionals who responded provided care to women with FGM/C, including 75.3 % of obstetricians/gynaecologists in ANZ [20]; 40 % of nurse-midwives in the USA [32]; 50 % of Swiss obstetricians/gynaecologists [37]; 60 % of Swedish health providers including paediatricians [36]; 12 % of paediatricians, 80 % of gynaecologists responding to a Spanish survey [33]; and 58 % of Belgian gynaecologists [34], ( Table 3). Despite working in an asylum seeker health service in Italy, which serves refugees from high prevalence countries, 71 % of health professionals reported that they had never met or assisted a woman with FGM/C [29].
Table 3

Reported experience of FGMC in clinical practice

ReferenceCountryHad seen patients with FGMCManaged women or girls with FGMC/FGMC complications; used prevention measuresHas performed FGMC or has been asked to perform FGMCClinical Guidelines/Clinical Education to support practice
Publications from African Countries
 Kaplan et al. 2013 [22]Gambia41 % - had seen a girl with complications of FGM/C41% - had seen a girl with complications of FGM/C 8 % - had performed FGM/CNRa
69 % - FGM/C is practiced in my family/household
 Ali et al. 2012 [23]SudanNRNR81 % had performed FGM/C during their careerNR
Each of these midwives had performed 5–88 FGM/C procedures in the previous year
 Rasheed et al. 2011 [25]EgyptNRNRNone of the nurses had performed FGM/CNR
 Refaat 2009 [26]EgyptNRNR19 % - performed FGM/CNR
34 % of those who perform FGM/C reported complications among patients
 Onuh et al. 2006 [28]NigeriaNRNR7 % - currently practice FGM/CNR
14 % have practiced FGM/C in the past
58 % - will perform FGM/C in the future if compelled to do so
Publications from “Western Countries”
 Caroppo et al. 2014 [29]Italy71 % - never met or assisted a woman with FGM/C despite working in an asylum seeker facility76 % - stated they would refer the woman for care elsewhere, with many different options provided34 % were aware of guidelines/procedures for the management of women with FGM/C
 Purchase et al. 2013 [30]UK87 % - had been involved in the care of a girl/woman with FGM/C3 midwives had been asked to perform FGM/C in a child or to re-infibulate after delivery26 % - had sufficient training in FGMC
20 % - had seen >10 cases31 % - reported that the hospital/trust had screening for FGM/C procedures
21 % - there was an FGM/C specialist (obstetrician or midwife) at the hospital trust
40 % - had training in de-infibulation
 Relph et al. 2013 [31]UK59 % had been involved in the care of a woman with FGM/CNRNRNR
 Moeed et al. 2012 [20]Australia and New Zealand76 % see women from African countries and from the Middle East47 % had seen at least one woman or girl with complications related to FGMC – “most commonly” urinary problems; problems in labour and dyspareunia21 % - of O&G specialists asked to re-infibulate after birthNR
75 % saw at least one woman with FGM/C in the last 5 years“A few” reported psychosexual complications12 % - of those who had been asked had done so:
Most saw 1–5 women with FGMC in the last 5 years38 % of the FGM/C workers had heard of re-suturing taking place; one respondent indicated that re-suturing had taken place >50 times
2 (0.5 %) respondents had been asked to perform FGM/C on a baby, young girl or woman
One was asked on 1–5 occasions; the other 6–10 occasions
1 % of the O&G specialists had convincing evidence that the procedure was done in Australia or NZ
10 % of the FGM/C workers were aware of convincing evidence that the procedure was being performed in Australia or NZ
 Hess et al. 2010 [32]USA43 % - of certified nurse- midwives had seen women with FGM/C in their practiceProblems associated with FGMC not discussed consistentlyNR
20 % discussed circumcision of daughters, nieces, grand- daughters “Often” or “Always”
78 % never discussed infertility
 Kaplan-Marcusan et al. 2009 [33]Spain2001NR91 % of paediatricians had an interest in FGM/CNR
6 % - of all HP surveyed had seen cases in practice42 % of paediatricians were aware of guidelines and protocols
7 % - of paediatricians saw FGM/C
2004
16 % - had seen FGMC in practice
19 % – of paediatricians saw FGM/C
FGM/C was seen by females more often than males
 Leye 2008 [34]Belgium58 % had seen women or girls with FGM/C in their practiceConsulted regarding complications:2 % [6] respondents had been asked to perform FGM/C in Belgium
Most common forms:1 % - acute complications4 % [13] had been asked whether FGMC could be performed in Belgium51 % wanted guidelines on FGM/C
56 – infibulation1 % - fertility problems9.5 % [31] gynaecologists had heard that FGM/C had been performed in Belgium45 % sought more information about FGM/C after seeing patients with FGM/C
40 – Excision2 % - psychological problems
3 – sunnab 4 % - fistulae
7 patients , 14 years old15 % - pregnancy and delivery problems
23 patients 15–18 years old18 % - chronic pain
The rest were 19 years or older19 % - urinary tract infections
Patients were from: Somalia, Ethiopia, and other including Nigeria, Egypt, Mali, Senegal41 % - sexual dysfunction
35 % - of those looking after pregnant women tried to persuade the mother not to perform FGMC if the child was a daughter
65 % - said they would not do any prevention
 Zaidi et al. 2007 [35]UK80 % had seen women with FGM/C in their practiceNRNRNR
 Tamaddon et al. 2006 [36]Sweden60 % had seen at least one patient with FGM/C39 % - had seen patients with long-term complications of FGM/C5 % - had been asked about performing FGM/C in Sweden; 4 of these were paediatriciansNR
1 % - had seen patients with complications due to recently performed FGC10 % - had been asked to perform reinfibulation after birth
2 of these 7 were paediatricians, 4 midwives, 1 gyneacologist
 Jager et al. 2002 [37]Switzerland51 % - had seen women with FGM/C in their practice in SwitzerlandNR21 % - had been asked to re-infibulated after birthFGM/C is not included in the undergraduate medical curriculum
73 % - from the French-speaking region of Switzerland had seen women with FGM/C in their practice2 gyneacologists have been asked to perform FGM/C in young girlsThere is no reporting system for FGM/C
4 gyneacologists were asked where FGMC could be performed in Switzerland
12 gyneacologists said that they knew of FGM/C being performed in Switzerland

aNR = Not reported; bSunna- Equivalent to the WHO Type 1 – cliteridectomy

Reported experience of FGMC in clinical practice aNR = Not reported; bSunna- Equivalent to the WHO Type 1 – cliteridectomy Some obstetricians, gynaecologists and midwives working in high income countries had been asked to re-infibulate women after delivery and some had done so (Table 4). Four studies reported that health professionals in high income countries had been asked to perform FGM/C in babies or young girls, or to provide information about where to get FGM/C procedures done: two respondents to the ANZ survey [20]; 6 respondents to the Belgian study [34]; two respondents to the Swiss survey [37] and seven health professionals including two paediatricians in a Swedish survey [36] (Table 3).
Table 4

Health professionals’ reported knowledge about FGMC

ReferenceCountryKnowledge of FGM/C ; FGM/C types ; high risk groupsKnowledge about complicationsKnowledge about legislation / clinical guidelines
Publications from African Countries
 Ashimi et al. 2014 [21]Nigeria91 % - had heard of FGM/C77 % - haemorrhageNRa
40 % - did not know any of the 4 types73 % - transmission of infectious disease (HIV, hepatitis and tetanus)
49 % identified “Angurya and Gishiri”b as forms of FGM/C63 % - sexual dysfunction
54 % - difficult birth
48 % - epidermal cysts
 Kaplan et al. 2013 [22]GambiaNR53 % - haemorrhageNR
59 % - transmission of infectious disease
46 % - difficult birth
25 % - sexual dysfunction
21 % - affects health and welfare of women and girls
 Ali et al. 2012 [23]Sudan7 % - identified all 4 types correctly46 % - transmission of infectious disease (HIV)25.5 % - FGM/C is illegal
545 % - identified type 1 correctly64 % - sexual dysfunction74.5 % - FGM/C is legal
29 % - infertility
 Dike et al. 2012 [24]NigeriaNR86 % - haemorrhage100 % - FGM/C is banned in some states
84 % - transmission of infectious disease (HIV)96 % - FGM/C is a crime against humanity
27 % - difficult birth
7 % - sexual dysfunction
 Rasheed et al. 2011 [25]EgyptNR66 % - knew about complications of FGM/CNR
 Refaat 2009 [26]Egypt76 % - know the type usually performed in Egypt (type II)75 % - haemorrhageNR
70 % - sexual dysfunction
64 % - shock
63 % - genital disfigurement
14 % - NO complications (if done by a physician or gynaecologist)
 Mostafa et al. 2006 [27]Egypt52 % - correctly identified type I62 % - aware that FGMC can cause complications including:17 % - knew Egyptian law which states that FGM/C cannot be performed by a non-physician
30 % - identified type II48 % - short-term physical28 % - reported that FGM/C violates the medical ethical principles of “do no harm” and “no not kill”
5 % - identified type III39 % - long term physical
62 % - psychosocial complications
59 % - sexual dysfunction
 Onuh et al. 2006 [28]Nigeria100 % - identified at least one type of FGMC98 % - haemorrhageNR
38 % - identified Type I and Type II ONLY as FGM/C81 % - transmission of infectious disease
7 % - identified all 4 types correctly54 % - transmission of HIV
80 % - difficult birth
55 % - scars and keloid formation
21 % - infertility
59 % - sexual dysfunction
Publications from “Western Countries”
 Caroppo et al. 2014 [29]Italy9 % - knew that there are different types of FGM/C depending on the woman’s country of origin5 % - knew how to manage a woman with FGMC44 % - knew that Italy has a law prohibiting FGMC practice
 Purchase et al. 2013 [30]UKNR92 % - identified each of the long term complications94 % - FGM/C always illegal in the UK
75 % - HIV/hepatitis risk79 % - were aware of the FGM/C Act
74 % - pelvic infection84 % - knew to contact a child protection officer if they thought a child was at risk
10 % - associated psychiatric syndromes
To prevent complications during labour:
74 % - knew that defibulation should take place pre-conception
31 % - knew that defibulation is recommended at ~ 20 weeks pregnancy
52 % - unaware of referral pathways
 Relph et al. 2013 [31]UK100 % - aware of the practice of FGM/C76 % - haemorrahge72 % - aware of UK legislation on FGM/C
58 % - knew there are 4 types of FGM/C32 % - knew that defibulation should be performed before pregnancy to avoid complications89 % - family/religious figure performing FGM/C in UK is illegal
93 % of senior doctors77 % - UK doctor performing FGM/C in UK is illegal
50 % of junior doctors67 % - reinfibulation after delivery is illegal
40 % - confident in diagnosing FGM/C78 % - sending a child abroad for FGM/C is illegal
 Hess et al. 2010 [32]USA18 % - knew that both Muslim and Christian women may have FGM/C71 % - of nurse midwives who did not have direct experience with FGMC knew about FGMC complications , compared with 89 % of those who had direct experience56 % - knew that it is illegal to perform FGM/C in girls and young women aged <18 years
39 % - knew FGM/C is NOT required by either religionOver a half of respondents did not know that circumcised women avoid health care due to stigma and legal implications
Nurse midwives with direct practice experience of FGM/C scored better on a knowledge test
 Kaplan-Marcusan et al. 2009 [33]Spain97 % knew what FGM/C isNR20 % - aware of protocols or guidelines
Able to identify the 4 types:42 % - of paediatricians aware of protocols or guidelines
41 % - of all professionals
68 % - of O&G
55 % - of paediatricians
38 % - general medicine
79 % - said they knew high risk countries
22 % - actually able to identify the high risk countries
 Leye 2008 [34]BelgiumNRNR46 % - knew that FGM/C was illegal in Belgium
24 % - knew which types of FGM/C were included under the law
1 % (4 respondents) - knew of guidelines and information about FGM/C in their hospital
 Zaidi et al. 2007 [35]UK98 % - knew what FGMC was84 % - knew of complications associated with FGMC40 % - knew the details of the UK FGM/C Act
42 % - knew that there were different types of FGMC70 % - knew that the best time for defibulation was before pregnancy (if FGMC diagnosed before pregnancy)
4 % - correctly classified the 4 types80 % - knew that defibulation should be done during pregnancy if diagnosed during pregnancy
84 % - knew the high risk groups54 % - knew that an anterior episiotomy should be performed if the woman is in the 2nd stage of labour
58 % - were NOT aware that women at risk should be identified during antenatal visits
 Tamaddon et al. 2006 [36]Sweden28 % - said they had adequate knowledge about FGM/CNRNR
20 % - of paediatricians said they had adequate knowledge about FGM/C
 Jager et al. 2002 [37]SwitzerlandNRNRRepresentatives from the Departments of Health in each Canton, did not know of any guidelines on FGM/C in their Canton

aNR = Not reported b Angurya: is a form of FGMC type 4 that involves the scraping of tissue around the vaginal opening. Gishiri: is a form of FGMC type 4 where a long knife is inserted into the vagina and backward cuts from the vagina's anterior wall into the perineum are made

Health professionals’ reported knowledge about FGMC aNR = Not reported b Angurya: is a form of FGMC type 4 that involves the scraping of tissue around the vaginal opening. Gishiri: is a form of FGMC type 4 where a long knife is inserted into the vagina and backward cuts from the vagina's anterior wall into the perineum are made Survey respondents in high income countries reported that they knew that FGM/C was being practised in children including in Belgium and Switzerland [34, 37]. Approximately 20 % of obstetricians/gynaecologists responding to the ANZ survey believed that women presenting to them with FGM/C probably had the procedure done in Australia or New Zealand [20]. Five surveys of health professionals in Nigeria [28], Egypt [25, 26], Gambia [22] and the Sudan [23] reported on whether the respondents had performed or had been asked to perform FGM/C procedures (Table 3). The study of Sudanese midwives reported that 81 % of respondents had performed FGM/C multiple times [23]. In contrast, among nurses and community midwives surveyed in Gambia, only 7.6 % had performed the procedure but 68.6 % said that FGM/C was practiced in their household or family [22]. Among nurses surveyed in Nigeria, 7 % currently practiced FGM, 14 % had practiced in the past and 58 % said they would perform FGM/C if required [24]. None of the nurses surveyed in Egypt [25] had performed FGM/C, but 19.2 % of Egyptian doctors surveyed had performed FGM/C and of these 24 % reported complications due to FGM/C [26]. Do health professionals have adequate knowledge about FGM/C types, complications, high risk groups and do they have access to education and training opportunities? Knowledge about the FGM/C types varied widely; few health professionals in high income countries knew that there were 4 different types of FGM/C and fewer were able to identify the 4 types (Table 4). The Spanish study was an exception with 85 % of O&G and 55 % of paediatricians able to identify the 4 types of FGM/C [33]. Knowledge of the 4 types of FGM/C was also poor among respondents surveyed in Africa, however, most respondents knew of the type of FGM most commonly practised in their local area e.g. 76 % of Egyptian health professionals knew of type II FGM/C which is usually performed in Egypt [26]. In a study in North East London, 50 % of senior doctors and only 7 % of junior doctors had formal training in FGM/C; midwives were more confident in diagnosing FGM/C than doctors and 75 % of medical students were aware of FGM/C complications [31]. However, in an earlier study of midwives and doctors who attend births, also in London, only 4 % could correctly identify the different types of FGM/C and knowledge about the correct procedures to de-infibulate women during labour was poor for ~45 % of the respondents [35]. Survey respondents correctly identified a number of short and long-term complications of FGM/C although some studies reported that respondents knew of no complications after FGM/C (Table 4). Almost all participants (92 %) in the study in Birmingham, UK, correctly identified most long-term complications of FGM/C except for HIV/hepatitis and pelvic infection [30]. Only two studies asked about knowledge of psychological or psychosocial complications after FGM/C [30, 31]. Eleven per cent of Belgian doctors aged less than 40 years had been taught about FGM/C but only 1 % knew of guidelines or information about FGM/C in their hospital [34]. Education on FGM/C is not regularly included in undergraduate education in Switzerland [37]. Few Swedish paediatricians knew about FGM/C and the motives behind FGM/C [36], and Norwegian health professionals felt that they had inadequate knowledge and skills about FGM/C and they called for specific training in how to speak with women and families about FGM/C and which words to use when raising the issue (Table 4). In a survey of obstetricians and other health professionals working in a large UK clinic, 26 % believed they had adequate training in FGM/C, 41 % had been trained in de-infibulation, 31 % knew that the hospital regularly screened for FGM/C and that the hospital had an obstetrician and a midwife that specialised in FGM/C [30]. Among paediatricians surveyed in Spain, 42.3 % were aware of protocols and guidelines about FGM/C [33]. In the study from Belgium, 51 % of gynaecologists surveyed, wanted relevant guidelines on FGM/C, 35 % said they tried to prevent mothers who had FGM/C from allowing FGM/C to be performed in their female children, but 65 % said they would not do any prevention [34]. Do health professionals have adequate knowledge about laws related to FGM/C? In a recent study of members (N = 607) of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK, 94 % understood that FGM/C is always illegal in the UK but 21 % were unaware of the FGM/C Act, (Table 4) [30]. The majority (84 %) of respondents said they would speak with a child protection officer if they suspected a child was at risk of FGM/C [30]. In the London study by Zaidi et al. 40 % of health professionals were familiar with the FGM/C Act [35]. Relph et al. reported that only 60 % of the UK health professionals surveyed were aware of current UK FGM/C law [31]. In the Belgian survey of gynaecologists, 45.5 % knew that FGM/C was illegal in Belgium, the majority (85.6 %) understood that FGM/C constituted violence against women, but only 60 % felt that it violated human rights [34]. Over a half (56 %) of midwives surveyed in a USA study knew that FGM/C was against the law [32]. In the Italian study of health professionals working with asylum seekers from FGM/C prevalent countries, less than half knew about the law prohibiting FGM/C in Italy [29]. Only 25 % of the Sudanese respondents [23] and 17 % of Egyptian respondents [24] knew that FGM/C was illegal in their country (Table 4). Furthermore, 35 % of Egyptian doctors responding to survey conducted by Refaat et. al. did not approve of the law banning FGM/C [26]. However, all participants surveyed in a Nigerian study knew that FGM/C was illegal in some states [24]. What are the attitudes and beliefs of health professionals towards the practice of FGM/C? Beliefs about the reasons for performing FGM/C varied widely with some respondents from both high income countries and from African countries believing that FGM/C was done for religious reasons (Table 5). Surveys from African countries also cited other reasons including cultural, social, medical economic and cosmetic, included “preservation of virginity”, “curbing promiscuity”, and “improving the appearance of genitalia,” while those from high income countries only cited cultural/traditional reasons or religious reasons (Table 5). In four surveys, between 4 % and 48 % of health professionals indicated that they would agree for their own daughters to undergo FGM/C [21, 25, 27, 28].
Table 5

Health professionals’ attitudes towards FGMC

ReferenceCountryBeliefs about the reasons for performing FGM/CSupport for and intentions for performing FGM/CBeliefs and attitudes about the law and educational needs
Publications from African Countries
 Ashimi et al. 2014 [21]Nigeria53 % - prevent promiscuity4 % would support FGM/CNRa
28 % - preserve virginity4 % would perform FGM/C
16 % - socio-cultural acceptance4 % of respondents (all women) would allow daughters to undergo FGM/C
10 % - religious reasons
8 % - medically beneficial
 Kaplan et al. 2013 [22]Gambia54 % - mandatory religious practice43 % - were supportive of the continuation of FGM/C practiceNR
48 % - cultural practice47 % - intended to subject their daughters to FGM/C
14 % - preserve virginity43 % - medicalising FGMC would make the practice safer
1 % - it does not violate human rights73 % - Health care workers have a role in eliminating FGMC
55 % – FGM/C cannot be eliminated in The Gambia
78 % - men should be involved in the debate about FGM/C
13 % - girls that have not undergone FGM/C should be discriminated against
 Ali et al. 2012 [23]Sudan51.2 % - cultural19 % - all forms of FGM/C are harmfulNR
26 % - religious76 % - only some forms are harmful
23 % - economic5 % - all forms are not harmful
 Dike et al. 2012 [24]Nigeria51 % - prevent promiscuity100 % would NOT have their daughters undergo FGM/CTo stop FGM/C:
47 % - appearance of external genitalia81 % - Public enlightenment needed
27 % - tradition25 % - Counselling of parents
11 % - initiation into womanhood7 % - punishing any person who aids or abets the practice
7 % - spiritual satisfaction
 Rasheed et al. 2011 [25]Egypt100 % - senior physicians believed FGM/C prescribed by religionNurses:NR
97 % - young physicians believed FGM/C prescribed by religion88 % - supported the practice of FGM/C
88 % - nurses believe it is a traditional practice48 % - would have their daughters undergo FGM/C
28 % - had their daughters undergo FGM/C
Young Physicians:
34 % - supported the practice of FGM/C
Senior physicians:
15 % - supported the practice
 Refaat 2009 [26]Egypt82 % - do NOT approve of the practice18 % - supported practice; reasons for continuing practice included:91 % - FGM/C and complications should be taught at medical school
Those practising in the Upper Egypt area, those from rural areas and those with a diploma (rather than PhD or Fellowship) were more likely to approve the practice of FGM/C• Convinced of benefit40 % believed that physicians are the most appropriate to perform FGM/C
• Profit35 % did NOT approve of the law banning FGM/C
• Harm reduction
82 % - did NOT approve of the practice for the following reasons:
18 % - supported practice for religious or customary reasons75 % - reduced sexual pleasure
64 % – pain
61 % - bad habit
52 % - not religious practice
49 % - causes health problems
48 % - against women’s dignity
 Mostafa et al. 2006 [27]Egypt51 % - NO medical reason for performing FGM/C43 % - unethical for a health professional to damage a healthy body50 % - medicalization is the first step to prevention of the practice
45 % - FGM/C is a violation of human rights65 % - FGM/C is NOT a health issue23 % - believed that the law is enough for prevention
34 % - FGM/C is essential part of culture32 % - would subject their future daughters to this practice53 % - believe that laws must go hand in hand with community education
24 % - FGM/C prevents external genitalia from growing58 % - would NOT object if family members were to subject their daughters to FGM/C
20 % FGM/C ensures a girl’s virginity73 % - FGM/C should be medicalised
49 % - prevents promiscuity91 % - medicalization favourable because it reduces pain; carried out under hygienic conditions and with anaesthetic
30 % - FGM/C is a religious obligation
86 % - believed that FGMC is practiced only by Muslims
 Onuh et al. 2006 [28]Nigeria9 % - decreases promiscuity4 % - will have their own daughters undergo FGMC92 % - FGM/C should be legislated against
10 % - makes genitalia more attractive3 % - FGM/C is a good practice
Other reasons: − cultural; financial; patient safeguarding from “traditional circumcisers”3 % - will encourage FGM/C
24 % - some forms of FGM/C are not harmful
Publications from “Western Countries”
 Purchase et al. 2013 [30]UK76 % - cultural reasonsNRNR
16 % - religious reasons
 Relph et al. 2013 [31]UK100 % - cultural reasons9 % - FGM/C should be medicalized to reduce complications87 % - would warn social services of a child in danger of FGM/C
18 % - would support a woman’s request for re-infibulation after birth if this was legal in the UK
 Moeed et al. 2012 [20]Australia and New ZealandNR21 % - O&G specialists believed that in the women and girls with FGMC seen by them, the FGM/C was probably done in Australia (but they did not provide number estimates)NR
42 % of the FGM/C workers believed that the women and children with FGMC probably had the procedure performed in Australia/NZ
26 % of FGMC/C workers believed that children were being taken out of Australia to attend family celebrations and to have FGM/C done overseas
 Kaplan-Marcusan et al. 2009 [33]Spain50 % - traditional reasonsNR2001 -1 % said ignore the problem
16 % - religious reasons48 % - educate
32 % - educate and report
19 % - report to authorities
2004 – None said ignore
49 % - educate and report
27 % - educate
24 % - report to authorities
 Leye 2008 [34]BelgiumNR86 % - FGM/C is a form of violence against women21 % - believed that FGM/C performed by a medical practitioner would reduce harm
61 % - FGM/C is a violation of human rights48 % - wanted more clarity around ethico-legal issues
7 % - FGM/C should be respected because of cultural and religious beliefs
77 % - considered re-infubulation as a form of FGM/C
19 % - would re-infibulate if requested by the woman
47 % - a symbolic incision was a good alternative to FGM/C
15 % - Genital piercings and vaginal cosmetic surgery considered a type of FGM/C

aNR = Not reported

Health professionals’ attitudes towards FGMC aNR = Not reported A minority of health professionals practising in high income countries were not against FGM/C. Seven of 344 Belgian doctors felt that FGM/C deserved respect because of cultural and religious connotations [34]. A survey of labour ward health personnel in the UK, showed that 14 % believed that a competent adult should be allowed to consent to FGM/C, 9 % felt that the procedure could be “medicalized” to prevent complications, and 17 % said they would support a woman’s request for re-infibulation [31]. Health professionals from high income countries indicated that they would reluctantly support re-infibulation of women from countries where this is customary to protect the woman from being marginalised from her community [26, 31]. In the ANZ study most respondents believed that it is acceptable to oversew labia majora to prevent infection and fusion, and for patient comfort [20]. Between 15 % and 91 % of Egyptian health professionals surveyed, supported FGM/C if performed by a doctor to minimise harm (Table 5) [25-27]. Health professionals believed that laws will only be effective with the implementation of better awareness and education for patients and the community about FGM/C [24, 33].

Discussion

Our review confirms that the practice of FGM/C continues and remains prevalent in some African countries despite many having adopted laws against this practice. We found 10 studies confirming that health professionals working in high income countries such as Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Spain and Switzerland care for women and girls with FGM/C [4–7, 10–12, 21–23]. Some have been approached to perform FGM/C in babies or young children [20, 24, 34, 37]. Furthermore, health professionals in Australia and New Zealand, the UK, Belgium and Switzerland believed that it was likely that some of their patients with FGM/C had the procedure done in these high income countries despite legislation making FGM/C illegal. Some health professionals did not know about anti-FGM/C laws or were unsure what these laws covered and what their obligations were under the laws [11]. There have been few prosecutions for FGM/C in countries where such laws exist [38]. Laws are not a deterrent if communities perceive that the risk of detection is low and there are few prosecutions [4, 5, 38]. To prevent the practice of FGM/C, health professionals felt that laws were not enough and needed to go hand in hand with awareness campaigns and education for patients and communities, including the men in those communities [24]. This is supported by the recently published UK Multi-Agency Practice Guidelines on Female Genital Mutilation [5]. Our systematic review is limited by the quality of the published studies, many with small sample sizes and low response rates. Although attitudes to FGM/C may differ according to the gender of the health professionals surveyed, this could not be assessed in our review due to inadequate sample description, seven of the 18 studies failing to report the gender of respondents. The level of knowledge about FGM/C among health professionals varied with most unable to recognise the 4 different types of FGM/C described by the WHO. Few were able to identify countries where FGM/C is prevalent and therefore did not know that women from these countries are at high risk of FGM/C. Health professionals who regularly worked with women from high risk communities and where the health service was targeted to these communities had better knowledge of FGM/C. However, even in a clinic in the UK that sees many women with FGM/C, only 26 % felt that they had adequate training about FGM/C [23]. Only two studies included in our review reported on psychological and psychosocial problems, either immediate or long-term, which are associated with FGM/C [27, 30]. This is consitent with findings from a study by Mulongo et al. and supports the need to raise awareness in health professionals about these under-recognised consequence of FGM/C and the need to provide counselling services to support women and girls affected by FGM/C and their families [8]. Most of the studies surveyed obstetricians, gynaecologists, nurses, midwives and other health professionals working with pregnant women. Only two surveys reported separate data for paediatricians [6, 7]. Paediatricians have an important role in recognising children at risk, preventing FGM/C by counselling parents and communities, reporting children to authorities, and in treating children who have undergone FGM/C and are suffering complications [5, 6, 19]. Of the 18 studies included in this review, only 5 addressed prevention of FGM/C, mainly through counselling women who have FGM/C and have recently given birth, against FGM/C for their daughters [4–6, 10, 11]. This is appropriate as the strongest predictor of a child undergoing FGM/C is the mother having undergone FGM/C herself [5]. However, in a study of Belgian obstetricians and gynaecologists 65 % said they would not undertake to counsel women to prevent FGM/C among their daughters [10]. This may be because they feel inadequately trained and resourced to advocate against FGM/C. In a large survey of Belgian midwives, which was not included in our systematic review as it was only recently published on-line, the majority lacked adequate access to education and guidelines about FGM/C to provide adequate care, and to counsel mothers against FGM/C for their new born daughters [39]. Health professionals need education and guidelines relevant to FGM/C provided both in basic medical training and in continuing medical education. They wanted more information about how to speak with families about this culturally sensitive issue, how to recognise children who might be at risk of FGM/C and how to treat women and girls who have undergone FGM/C. The RACP guidelines on FGM/C provide a short summary of recommendations for paediatricians who may be faced with FGM/C, however, there is no practical guidance of what to do and what to say when dealing with a child with FGM/C or at risk of FGM/C and her family, often within a complex medical and socio-cultural context [40]. Health professionals also called for better education about anti-FGM laws and their obligations under these laws. As FGM/C often occurs in the community, there is a need for community health workers, general practitioners, community nurses and community paediatricians to be educated about FGM/C and to be provided with clear guidelines about what actions they need to take to prevent FGM/C, including guidance about when and how to report children to child protection authorities. Health professionals must also be provided with appropriate structures within the healthcare system, including referral pathways and specialist services for women and girls with FGM/C, and girls who may be at risk of FGM/C. Such pathways, integrating community prevention with inter-agency, inter-sectoral collaboration including schools, health services and community groups, has been recommended and is being implemented in the UK [5, 19]. Furthermore, healthcare systems, practitioner credentialing bodies and communities have an important role in education and prevention of the medicalization of FGM/C [41].

Conclusion

This is the first literature review of health professionals’ knowledge, attitudes and practice related to FGM/C. Only 18 studies were identified between the years 2000 and 2014, suggesting that this topic is under-researched. The review highlighted the need for easily accessible educational resources and evidence-based guidelines to enable health professionals to provide culturally sensitive medical and psychological care for women and girls who have undergone FGM/C. Furthermore, health professionals, especially paediatricians and family doctors, need skills to recognise women and girls at risk of FGM/C; they need resources to enable them to counsel girls and their families and communities to prevent this harmful and illegal practice. Most of the research papers reported on obstetricians, gynaecologists and other health professionals dealing with pregnant women. As the immigrant communities in high income countries become larger and increasingly multicultural and ethnically diverse, health professionals are more likely to see women and girls with FGM/C or at risk of FGM/C, in their clinical practice. Further research is needed to determine knowledge gaps and needs for education and resources among other groups of clinicians including paediatricians, general practitioners and community health workers.
  21 in total

1.  Female genital mutilation: knowledge, attitude and practice among nurses.

Authors:  Sunday O Onuh; Gabriel O Igberase; Joaness O U Umeora; Sylvanus A Okogbenin; Valentine O Otoide; Etedafe P Gharoro
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.798

2.  What do medical students in Alexandria know about female genital mutilation?

Authors:  S R A Mostafa; N A M El Zeiny; S E S Tayel; E I Moubarak
Journal:  East Mediterr Health J       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 1.628

3.  A multicentre study on knowledge and attitude of nurses in northern Nigeria concerning female genital mutilation.

Authors:  Adewale Ashimi; Labaran Aliyu; Muhammad Shittu; Taiwo Amole
Journal:  Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care       Date:  2014-03-06       Impact factor: 1.848

4.  Knowledge and attitudes of female genital mutilation among midwives in Eastern Sudan.

Authors:  Abdel Aziem A Ali
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2012-09-28       Impact factor: 3.223

5.  Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C): survey of RANZCOG fellows, diplomates & trainees and FGM/C prevention and education program workers in Australia and New Zealand.

Authors:  Saman M Moeed; Sonia R Grover
Journal:  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2012-09-23       Impact factor: 2.100

6.  Female genital mutilation: knowledge, attitude and practices of Flemish midwives.

Authors:  Sien Cappon; Charlotte L'Ecluse; Els Clays; Inge Tency; Els Leye
Journal:  Midwifery       Date:  2014-12-08       Impact factor: 2.372

7.  Knowledge of female genital mutilation among healthcare professionals.

Authors:  N Zaidi; A Khalil; C Roberts; M Browne
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 1.246

8.  Female genital mutilation in children presenting to a London safeguarding clinic: a case series.

Authors:  Deborah Hodes; Alice Armitage; Kerry Robinson; Sarah M Creighton
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2015-07-27       Impact factor: 3.791

9.  Health care for immigrant women in Italy: are we really ready? A survey on knowledge about female genital mutilation.

Authors:  Emanuele Caroppo; Aurora Almadori; Valeria Giannuzzi; Patrizia Brogna; Alessandra Diodati; Pietro Bria
Journal:  Ann Ist Super Sanita       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 1.663

10.  Perception of primary health professionals about female genital mutilation: from healthcare to intercultural competence.

Authors:  Adriana Kaplan-Marcusan; Pere Torán-Monserrat; Juana Moreno-Navarro; Ma Jose Castany Fàbregas; Laura Muñoz-Ortiz
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-01-15       Impact factor: 2.655

View more
  17 in total

1.  Legal and Ethical Considerations in the Delivery of Sexual Health Care in Tanzania.

Authors:  B R Simon Rosser; Lucy Mgopa; Sebalda Leshabari; Michael W Ross; Gift Gadiel Lukumay; Agnes Massawe; Ever Mkonyi; Inari Mohammed; Stella Mushy; Dorkas Mwakawanga; Maria Trent; James Wadley
Journal:  Afr J Health Nurs Midwifery       Date:  2020-12-27

2.  Supporting patients with female genital mutilation in primary care: a qualitative study exploring the perspectives of GPs' working in England.

Authors:  Sharon Dixon; Lisa Hinton; Sue Ziebland
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Female Genital Cutting: Clinical knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices from a Provider survey in the US.

Authors:  Jessica L Lane; Crista E Johnson-Agbakwu; Nicole Warren; Chakra Budhathoki; Eugene C Cole
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2019-10

4.  Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Innovative Training Approach for Nurse-Midwives in High Prevalent Settings.

Authors:  Samuel Kimani; Tammary Esho; Violet Kimani; Samuel Muniu; Jane Kamau; Christine Kigondu; Joseph Karanja; Jaldesa Guyo
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Int       Date:  2018-03-15

5.  Female genital mutilation in children presenting to Australian paediatricians.

Authors:  Yvonne Zurynski; Amy Phu; Premala Sureshkumar; Sarah Cherian; Marie Deverell; Elizabeth J Elliott
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 3.791

6.  The lived experience of female genital cutting (FGC) in Somali-Canadian women's daily lives.

Authors:  Danielle Jacobson; Emily Glazer; Robin Mason; Deanna Duplessis; Kimberly Blom; Janice Du Mont; Navmeet Jassal; Gillian Einstein
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Female Genital Mutilation Consequences and Healthcare Received among Migrant Women: A Phenomenological Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Alba González-Timoneda; Marta González-Timoneda; Antonio Cano Sánchez; Vicente Ruiz Ros
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-07-05       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Knowledge, attitudes and practices of primary healthcare professionals to female genital mutilation in Valencia, Spain: are we ready for this challenge?

Authors:  Alba González-Timoneda; Vicente Ruiz Ros; Marta González-Timoneda; Antonio Cano Sánchez
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-07-24       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Crossing cultural divides: A qualitative systematic review of factors influencing the provision of healthcare related to female genital mutilation from the perspective of health professionals.

Authors:  Catrin Evans; Ritah Tweheyo; Julie McGarry; Jeanette Eldridge; Juliet Albert; Valentine Nkoyo; Gina Higginbottom
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-04       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  What are the experiences of seeking, receiving and providing FGM-related healthcare? Perspectives of health professionals and women/girls who have undergone FGM: protocol for a systematic review of qualitative evidence.

Authors:  Catrin Evans; Ritah Tweheyo; Julie McGarry; Jeanette Eldridge; Carol McCormick; Valentine Nkoyo; Gina Marie Awoko Higginbottom
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.