Background In a context of high migration, there are growing numbers of women living in the UK who have experienced female genital mutilation/cutting. Evidence is needed to understand how best to meet their health-care needs and to shape culturally appropriate service delivery. Objectives To undertake two systematic reviews of qualitative evidence to illuminate the experiences, needs, barriers and facilitators around seeking and providing female genital mutilation-/cutting-related health care from the perspectives of (1) women and girls who have experienced female genital mutilation/cutting (review 1) and (2) health professionals (review 2). Review methods The reviews were undertaken separately using a thematic synthesis approach and then combined into an overarching synthesis. Sixteen electronic databases (including grey literature sources) were searched from inception to 31 December 2017 and supplemented by reference list searching. Papers from any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country with any date and in any language were included (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development membership was considered a proxy for comparable high-income migrant destination countries). Standardised tools were used for quality appraisal and data extraction. Findings were coded and thematically analysed using NVivo 11 (QSR International, Warrington, UK) software. Confidence in the review findings was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation – Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. All review steps involved two or more reviewers and a team that included community-based and clinical experts. Results Seventy-eight papers (74 distinct studies) met the inclusion criteria for both reviews: 57 papers in review 1 (n = 18 from the UK), 30 papers in review 2 (n = 5 from the UK) and nine papers common to both. Review 1 comprised 17 descriptive themes synthesised into five analytical themes. Women’s health-care experiences related to female genital mutilation/cutting were shaped by silence and stigma, which hindered care-seeking and access to care, especially for non-pregnant women. Across all countries, women reported emotionally distressing and disempowering care experiences. There was limited awareness of specialist service provision. Good care depended on having a trusting relationship with a culturally sensitive and knowledgeable provider. Review 2 comprised 20 descriptive themes synthesised into six analytical themes. Providers from many settings reported feeling uncomfortable talking about female genital mutilation/cutting, lacking sufficient knowledge and struggling with language barriers. This led to missed opportunities for, and suboptimal management of, female genital mutilation-/cutting-related care. More positive experiences/practices were reported in contexts where there was input from specialists and where there were clear processes to address language barriers and to support timely identification, referral and follow-up. Limitations Most studies had an implicit focus on type III female genital mutilation/cutting and on maternity settings, but many studies combined groups or female genital mutilation/cutting types, making it hard to draw conclusions specific to different communities, conditions or contexts. There were no evaluations of service models, there was no research specifically on girls and there was limited evidence on psychological needs. Conclusions The evidence suggests that care and communication around female genital mutilation/cutting can pose significant challenges for women and health-care providers. Appropriate models of service delivery include language support, continuity models, clear care pathways (including for mental health and non-pregnant women), specialist provision and community engagement. Routinisation of female genital mutilation/cutting discussions within different health-care settings may be an important strategy to ensure timely entry into, and appropriate receipt of, female genital mutilation-/cutting-related care. Staff training is an ongoing need. Future work Future research should evaluate the most-effective models of training and of service delivery. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD420150300012015 (review 1) and PROSPERO CRD420150300042015 (review 2). Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.
Introduction As a result of global migration, health professionals in destination countries are increasingly being called upon to provide care for women and girls who have experienced female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). There is considerable evidence to suggest that their care experiences are sub-optimal. This systematic review sought to illuminate possible reasons for this by exploring the views, experiences, barriers and facilitators to providing FGM-related healthcare in high income countries, from health professionals’ perspectives. Methods Sixteen electronic databases/resources were searched from inception to December 2017, supplemented by reference list searching and suggestions from experts. Inclusion criteria were: qualitative studies (including grey literature) of any design, any cadre of health worker, from OECD countries, of any date and any language. Two reviewers undertook screening, selection, quality appraisal and data extraction using tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Synthesis involved an inductive thematic approach to identify descriptive themes and interpret these into higher order analytical constructs. Confidence in the review findings was assessed using GRADE-CERQual. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420150300042015). Results Thirty papers (representing 28 distinct studies) from nine different countries were included. The majority of studies focused on maternity contexts. No studies specifically examined health professionals’ role in FGM/C prevention/safeguarding. There were 20 descriptive themes summarised into six analytical themes that highlighted factors perceived to influence care: knowledge and training, communication, cultural (mis)understandings, identification of FGM/C, clinical management practices and service configuration. Together, these inter-linked themes illuminate the ways in which confidence, communication and competence at provider level and the existence and enactment of pathways, protocols and specialist support at service/system level facilitate or hinder care. Conclusions FGM/C is a complex and culturally shaped phenomenon. In order to work effectively across cultural divides, there is a need for provider training, clear guidelines, care pathways and specialist FGM/C centres to support mainstream services.
ObjectiveTo explore the experiences of accessing and receiving healthcare related to female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) across the life course from the perspective of women and girls who have undergone FGM/C.DesignA systematic review of qualitative research studies using a thematic synthesis approach.MethodsInclusion criteria were qualitative studies (including grey literature) of any design, from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, of any date and any language. Sixteen electronic databases were searched from inception to December 2017, supplemented by reference list searching. Papers were screened, selected and quality-appraised by two reviewers using established tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute. NVivo software was used to extract study characteristics and code study findings. An inductive thematic synthesis approach was undertaken to identify descriptive themes and interpret these into higher order analytical constructs. Confidence in the review findings was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations-Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE-CERQual).ResultsFifty-seven papers (from 55 distinct studies) from 14 different OECD countries were included (50% published within the last 8 years). One-third of studies focused exclusively on maternity care experiences, whereas others covered a range of foci. No studies reported explicitly on girls’ experiences or on experiences of health service-led safeguarding interventions. Only three studies addressed psychological care. The synthesis developed 17 descriptive themes, organised into 5 analytical constructs. These related to communication, access to care, experiences of cultural dissonance/integrity, disempowering care experiences and positive care encounters. The themes illuminate significant challenges to obtaining timely and holistic care (especially for deinfibulation), and highlight different ways in which women may experience care as disrespectful, unsafe and disempowering. Key elements of ‘culturally safe care’ are identified.ConclusionsThis review has highlighted key knowledge gaps, especially around (1) girls’/unmarried women’s experiences and (2) the impact of recent safeguarding interventions. There is an ongoing need for community engagement, service development and staff training.PROSPERO registration numberCRD420150300012015.
Objective: To determine whether timing of deinfibulation influences obstetric outcomes for women with type 3 female genital mutilation (FGM). Design: A retrospective observational study comprising 94 women with type 3 FGM who gave birth from 2008–2012. Method: Outcomes described in maternity notes of women with deinfibulation performed prior to labour (n=62) compared with ‘not deinfibulated before labour’ (n=32). Secondary analysis was then performed excluding women who had caesarean sections. Findings: Women who were ‘not deinfibulated before labour’ had a significantly greater risk of episiotomy (RR 1.67, P<0.05) and prolonged hospital stay of >2 days (RR 1.33, P<0.05). They also had non-significant increased risk of a postpartum haemorrhage (RR 1.15, P=0.58); prolonged second stage (RR 1.77, P=0.16); and required vaginal packing in theatre (RR 2.6, P =0.17). Apgar scores were no different, and both groups had higher than the national average rates for emergency caesarean section and instrumental birth. Conclusion: Type 3 FGM is associated with morbidity in childbirth. When deinfibulation is deferred until labour the risk of morbidity increases.
Objectives To identify the presenting characteristics, needs and clinical management of non-pregnant women with female genital mutilation who attended the Sunflower clinic, a midwife-led specialist service. Methods This was a retrospective case series review examining referral patterns, clinical findings and subsequent management between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2019.The review was conducted at a multi-disciplinary female genital mutilation clinic for non-pregnant women aged 18 years and over in West London. Results There were 182 attendances at the clinic (88 new patients; 94 follow-up appointments). Almost half (52%) had type 3 mutilation, 32% had type 2; 9% had a history of type 3; 5% had type 1; one had type 4 and one declined assessment. A total of 35 women (40%) disclosed at least one psychological symptom (such as depression, anxiety, flashbacks, nightmares) during initial consultation. Conclusions Non-pregnant women attending female genital mutilation services present with a wide range of psychological and physical problems. Holistic woman-centred models of care appear to facilitate access to deinfibulation and counselling, which in turn may reduce long-term costs to the NHS. Safeguarding is an intrinsic part of midwives' work and is sometimes complex. The authors recommend a revision of the World Health Organization classifications to specify partial or total removal of the clitoral glans (rather than the clitoris as a whole) as this is inaccurate and may have a negative psychological impact for women.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.