↓ Skip to main content

Obstetric outcomes for women with female genital mutilation at an Australian hospital, 2006–2012: a descriptive study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Obstetric outcomes for women with female genital mutilation at an Australian hospital, 2006–2012: a descriptive study
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12884-016-1123-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nesrin Varol, Angela Dawson, Sabera Turkmani, John J. Hall, Susie Nanayakkara, Greg Jenkins, Caroline S. E. Homer, Kevin McGeechan

Abstract

Women, who have been subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM), can suffer serious and irreversible physical, psychological and psychosexual complications. They have more adverse obstetric outcomes as compared to women without FGM. Exploratory studies suggest radical change to abandonment of FGM by communities after migration to countries where FGM is not prevalent. Women who had been subjected to FGM as a child in their countries of origin, require specialised healthcare to reduce complications and further suffering. Our study compared obstetric outcomes in women with FGM to women without FGM who gave birth in a metropolitan Australian hospital with expertise in holistic FGM management. The obstetric outcomes of one hundred and ninety-six women with FGM who gave birth between 2006 and 2012 at a metropolitan Australian hospital were analysed. Comparison was made with 8852 women without FGM who gave birth during the same time period. Data were extracted from a database specifically designed for women with FGM and managed by midwives specialised in care of these women, and a routine obstetric database, ObstetriX. The accuracy of data collection on FGM was determined by comparing these two databases. All women with FGM type 3 were deinfibulated antenatally or during labour. The outcome measures were (1) maternal: accuracy and grade of FGM classification, caesarean section, instrumental birth, episiotomy, genital tract trauma, postpartum blood loss of more than 500 ml; and (2) neonatal: low birth weight, admission to a special care nursery, stillbirth. The prevalence of FGM in women who gave birth at the metropolitan hospital was 2 to 3 %. Women with FGM had similar obstetric outcomes to women without FGM, except for statistically significant higher risk of first and second degree perineal tears, and caesarean section. However, none of the caesarean sections were performed for FGM indications. The ObstetriX database was only 35 % accurate in recording the correct FGM type. Women with FGM had similar obstetric outcomes to women without FGM in an Australian metropolitan hospital with expertise in FGM management. Specialised FGM services with clinical practice guideline and education of healthcare professionals may increase the detection rate of FGM and improve obstetric management of women with FGM.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 155 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 15%
Student > Bachelor 24 15%
Researcher 13 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 48 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 23%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Psychology 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 52 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 12 January 2017.
All research outputs
#1,934,698
of 8,900,478 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#653
of 1,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,045
of 249,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#30
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,900,478 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 249,053 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.