Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835Open textbooks209Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›Open textbooks›Improving care for women and girls who have undergone female genital mutilation/cutting: qualitative systematic reviews›Conclusions

Continue where you left off ()

Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Improving care for women and girls who have undergone female genital mutilation/cutting: qualitative systematic reviews · Conclusions

Conclusions

CC BY 4.0 · NIHR Journals Library · approximately 3 min read

The reviews presented in this report have focused exclusively on OECD countries, producing findings that are relevant to the UK context. To our knowledge, they are the first to have considered all aspects of FGM/C-related health care at all stages of the life course, in all clinical settings, and to bring together the perspectives of women and health professionals. In addition, in contrast to other systematic reviews in this field, they have, for the first time, included relevant grey literature and papers in languages other than English. As a result, the reviews in this project have been able to present an exceptionally comprehensive and detailed picture of current care experiences. Furthermore, by moving beyond the usual focus on maternity care contexts,63,64 the reviews have been able to advance current knowledge beyond an understanding of experiences (although this is important) to provide a more analytical and holistic interpretation of factors influencing care-seeking, decision-making for deinfibulation surgery, service access and the development of care pathways.

In the last 5 years, the UK has made enormous strides in developing policy, training and commissioning guidance around FGM/C. However, the reviews (which include papers and reports from 22 UK-based studies) suggest that the seeking and providing of FGM/C-related health care is often characterised by processes of silence, secrecy, stigma, shame and stereotyping. Hence, although positive experiences are reported (and greatly appreciated), there still appear to be many challenges. Particularly concerning are the reports of disrespectful care, ad hoc service provision and health professionals who lack clinical and cultural competence.

Many of the challenges relate to FGM/C specifically (e.g. management of deinfibulation or specific mental health needs), but many (e.g. language barriers) also relate to wider challenges in care delivery for migrant populations in a context of super-diversity. Therefore, it is important to consider the findings from these reviews within the wider context of service configuration and resourcing for super-diverse population groups (e.g. provision of accessible and appropriate interpretation services, choice of female health providers, continuity of care models, personalised care models or training of health professionals for culturally safe practice).

Dissemination of the reviews

Activities undertaken to date include:

  • publication of the review protocol117
  • a national stakeholder event
  • presentation to obstetrics and gynaecology registrars across the East Midlands region
  • two oral presentations at an international conference in Montreal, Canada, on 28/29 May 2018 [2nd International Expert Meeting on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Sharing Data and Experiences, Improving Collaboration; www.fourwav.es/view/644/info/ (accessed 12 July 2019)]
  • two publications (one from each review) in international peer-reviewed journals.139,145

Knowledge translation and impact

  • The review findings have been shared with the Nottingham and Nottinghamshire joint FGM/C steering group. A health task force has now been established, with a first meeting in July 2018 to consider how to implement the review findings.
  • Two members of the review team (CE and JA) have been invited onto the project oversight committee of a recently funded NIHR HTA research project being conducted by a team at the University of Birmingham [HTA 16/78/04; Female Genital Mutilation: a qualitative study exploring survivors’ and health-care professionals’ views on the timing of deinfibulation surgery (FGM/C Sister Study)].
  • The project has led to research capacity development within the team. Valentine Nkoyo has started a PhD at the University of Nottingham focusing on FGM/C prevention as part of its pioneering ‘Rights Lab’. Juliet Albert has received funding from the Health Education England/NIHR Integrated Clinical Academic Pre-doctoral Clinical Academic Fellowship to develop a PhD application on FGM/C.
← Discussion, implications and recommendationsReferences →

Attribution. Catrin Evans; Ritah Tweheyo; Julie McGarry; Jeanette Eldridge; Juliet Albert; Valentine Nkoyo et al. (2019). Improving care for women and girls who have undergone female genital mutilation/cutting: qualitative systematic reviews. NIHR Journals Library. Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2019. This work was produced by Evans et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. NCBI Bookshelf NBK546416. CC BY 4.0. Original source ↗. Text reproduced from the Bookshelf XML without changing wording; figures, images and supplements are not reproduced.

In this chapter Contents

  • Conclusions

Source

OpenStax source file ↗

Source record ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support