↓ Skip to main content

Female genital mutilation in the UK- where are we, where do we go next? Involving communities in setting the research agenda

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Female genital mutilation in the UK- where are we, where do we go next? Involving communities in setting the research agenda
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40900-018-0103-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Dixon, K. Agha, F. Ali, L. El-Hindi, B. Kelly, L. Locock, N. Otoo-Oyortey, S. Penny, E. Plugge, L. Hinton

Abstract

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is all practices involving cutting, alteration or injury to the female genitalia for non-medical reasons. It is a form of violence against women and children, with no benefits and many harms. In 2014, the UK Government committed to working to eliminate FGM. Steps taken towards this aim included creation of educational and safeguarding resources for professionals, and legislative changes including a mandatory reporting duty for professionals in England and Wales (where if a girl under 18 discloses or is found on examination to have FGM then the professional is mandated to report this to the police), and an FGM Enhanced Dataset applicable to NHS organisations in England requiring the submission of personal data about women and girls who have had FGM to NHS Digital. To date, compliance with dataset returns from primary care services have been low. This report describes using patient and public involvement (PPI) to identify research and service priorities to support communities affected by FGM. We held a series of PPI events (4 focus groups, and a multi-agency seminar) in 2015-2016, following the introduction of these legislative changes, speaking to community members, and professionals involved in their care. We asked participants to consider what they identified as research, knowledge and service priorities to support communities affected by FGM. The impact of these legislative and reporting requirements on the trust needed for community members to seek to consult health services was identified as important for further research. Priorities for service development were holistic services, that met a woman's needs throughout her lifecourse. Participants emphasised the importance of understanding how to listen, involve and utilise community voices in developing education for professionals, designing services, and developing policy. There was a desire for change to develop from within affected communities; any learning and resources need to be co-created and constructed in such a way that they can be effectively shared between women, communities, and professionals. Questions remain about how to define community consultation, how to recognise when it was adequate, and how to hear beyond community activists to hear a wider range of voices.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 19%
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 23 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 22 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 16%
Social Sciences 11 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 25 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 18 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,977,085
of 21,596,161 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#174
of 347 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,152
of 297,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,596,161 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 347 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.9. 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 297,835 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them