↓ Skip to main content

Preventing female genital mutilation in high income countries: a systematic review of the evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, July 2019
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 (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
153 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
Preventing female genital mutilation in high income countries: a systematic review of the evidence
Published in
Reproductive Health, July 2019
DOI 10.1186/s12978-019-0774-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carolyne Njue, Jamlick Karumbi, Tammary Esho, Nesrin Varol, Angela Dawson

Abstract

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is prevalent in communities of migration. Given the harmful effects of the practice and its illegal status in many countries, there have been concerted primary, secondary and tertiary prevention efforts to protect girls from FGM. However, there is paucity of evidence concerning useful strategies and approaches to prevent FGM and improve the health and social outcomes of affected women and girls. We analysed peer-reviewed and grey literature to extract the evidence for FGM prevention interventions from a public health perspective in high income countries by a systematic search of bibliographic databases and websites using appropriate keywords. Identified publications were screened against selection criteria, following the PRISMA guidelines. We examined the characteristics of prevention interventions, including their programmatic approaches and strategies, target audiences and evaluation findings using an apriori template. Eleven documents included in this review described primary and secondary prevention activities. High income countries have given attention to legislative action, bureaucratic interventions to address social injustice and protect those at risk of FGM, alongside prevention activities that favour health persuasion, foster engagement with the local community through outreach and the involvement of community champions, healthcare professional training and capacity strengthening. Study types are largely process evaluations that include measures of short-term outcomes (pre- and post-changes in attitude, knowledge and confidence or audits of practices). There is a dearth of evaluative research focused on empowerment-oriented preventative activities that involve individual women and girls who are affected by FGM. Beattie's framework provides a useful way of articulating negotiated and authoritative prevention actions required to address FGM at national and local levels. FGM is a complex and deeply rooted sociocultural issue that requires a multifaceted response that encompasses socio-economic, physical and environmental factors, education and learning, health services and facilities, and community mobilisation activities. Investment in the rigorous longitudinal evaluation of FGM health prevention efforts are needed to provide strong evidence of impact to guide future decision making. A national evidence-based framework would bring logic, clarity, comprehension, evidence and economically more effective response for current and future prevention interventions addressing FGM in high income countries.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 153 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Researcher 13 8%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Librarian 5 3%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 64 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 23 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 13%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Psychology 5 3%
Engineering 5 3%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 70 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 09 December 2020.
All research outputs
#4,220,985
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#496
of 1,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,968
of 347,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#12
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,447 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 347,188 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.