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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
What do we know about assessing healthcare students and professionals’ knowledge, attitude and practice regarding female genital mutilation? A systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Reproductive Health, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12978-017-0318-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jasmine Abdulcadir, Lale Say, Christina Pallitto |
| Abstract |
Improving healthcare providers' capacities of prevention and treatment of female genital mutilation (FGM) is important given the fact that 200 million women and girls globally are living with FGM. However, training programs are lacking and often not evaluated. Validated and standardized tools to assess providers' knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) regarding FGM are lacking. Therefore, little evidence exists on the impact of training efforts on healthcare providers' KAP on FGM. The aim of our paper is to systematically review the available published and grey literature on the existing quantitative tools (e.g. scales, questionnaires) measuring healthcare students' and providers' KAP on FGM. We systematically reviewed the published and grey literature on any quantitative assessment/measurement/evaluation of KAP of healthcare students and providers about FGM from January 1(st), 1995 to July 12(th), 2016. Twenty-nine papers met our inclusion criteria. We reviewed 18 full text questionnaires implemented and administered to healthcare professionals (students, nurses, midwives and physicians) in high and low income countries. The questionnaires assessed basic KAP on FGM. Some included personal and cultural beliefs, past clinical experiences, personal awareness of available clinical guidelines and laws, previous training on FGM, training needs, caregiver's confidence in management of women with FGM, communication and personal perceptions. Identified gaps included the medical, psychological or surgical treatments indicated to improve girls and women's health; correct diagnosis, recording ad reporting capacities; clitoral reconstruction and psychosexual care of circumcised women. Cultural and personal beliefs on FGM were investigated only in high prevalence countries. Few questionnaires addressed care of children, child protection strategies, treatment of short-term complications, and prevention. There is a need for implementation and testing of interventions aimed at improving healthcare professionals' and students' capacities of diagnosis, care and prevention of FGM. Designing tools for measuring the outcomes of such interventions is a critical aspect. A unique, reproducible and standardized questionnaire could be created to measure the effect of a particular training program. Such a tool would also allow comparisons between settings, countries and interventions. An ideal tool would test the clinical capacities of providers in managing complications and communicating with clients with FGM as well as changes in KAP. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ethiopia | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 210 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 11% |
| Researcher | 20 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 43 | 20% |
| Unknown | 65 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 43 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 18% |
| Psychology | 16 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 23 | 11% |
| Unknown | 70 | 33% |
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 15 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,293,094
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#714
of 1,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,335
of 313,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#15
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 313,717 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.