Knowledge of female genital mutilation among healthcare professionals

Abstract

The World Health Organisation estimates that 2 million women undergo some form of female genital mutilation (FGM) annually. Because of increasing migration, clinicians in the UK are increasingly exposed to women who have suffered FGM. Recognising this trend, the RCOG has set standards for guidance of health professionals caring for women with FGM. As yet, no study has assessed levels of knowledge of FGM among relevant health professionals. An anonymous structured questionnaire based on the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' standards was circulated among staff at a University Teaching Hospital. A total of 45 participants completed the questionnaire. Only 40% were familiar with the regulations in the FGM Act of 2003; 58% were unable to list the different categories of FGM; 47% incorrectly thought that caesarean section is the best way of managing FGM if vaginal examination is not possible in the first stage of labour and 54% chose anterior episiotomy as the treatment of choice during the second stage. Our study found that there were significant gaps both in theoretical knowledge and practice.

Evidence to inform education, training and supportive work environments for midwives involved in the care of women with female genital mutilation: A review of global experience

“…Midwives in the studies included in this review reported a lack of knowledge, information and practice guidelines on FGM (Lazar, et al, 2013;Zaidi, et al, 2007). This concurs with other findings in this area.…”

“…In the UK, a survey of health professionals including 15 midwives (Zaidi, et al, 2007) found that only 20% of the midwives were aware of FGM and none were able to classify FGM correctly. The findings indicate that midwives had better knowledge on the diagnosis and management of infibulation in labour and during birth but less than 50% were able to give correct answers in these areas.…”

“…Table 2 indicates the themes by paper. (Berggren, et al, 2004) 3 3 3 (Hess, 2010) 3 3 (Isman, et al, 2013) 3 3 3 (Jacoby & Smith, 2013) 3 (Korfker, et al, 2012) 3 (Lazar, et al, 2013) 3 3 (Leval, et al, 2004) 3 (Tamaddon, et al, 2006) 3 3 3 (Widmark, et al, 2002) 3 3 3 (Zaidi, et al, 2007) 3…”

“…Of the 10 papers included in the review, there were four that employed qualitative methods (Berggren et al, 2004;Isman et al, 2013;Lazar et al, 2013;Leval et al, 2004), five used a quantitative survey design (Jacoby & Smith, 2013;Korfker et al, 2012;Tamaddon et al, 2006;Widmark et al, 2002;Zaidi et al, 2007) and one used a survey design that also collected qualitative data. Eight papers were from HIC and two provided data about midwives in LMIC (Berggren, et al, 2004;Isman, et al, 2013).…”

The Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Experience in Somali Women: Their Wishes, Knowledge and Attitude

“…It is crucial to reach an accurate understanding of the knowledge, attitudes and practices of participants toward the practice of FGM/C by HCPO to envision effective strategies for the Somalis. This has mostly been explored among western HCPO working in hospitals and primary health care centers located in receptor countries for African migrants, such as the UK [22], Switzerland [23], Sweden [13], Australia [24], and the United States [25], indicating knowledge gaps concerning the health and legal issues of FGM/C. Despite these facts, as in the study by Refaat [17], doctors may be doing this for conviction, profit, belief, and to minimize harm in Africa and other countries.…”