↓ Skip to main content

The ongoing violence against women: Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, April 2016
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
292 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
The ongoing violence against women: Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting
Published in
Reproductive Health, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12978-016-0159-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacinta K. Muteshi, Suellen Miller, José M. Belizán

Abstract

Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) comprises different practices involving cutting, pricking, removing and sometimes sewing up external female genitalia for non-medical reasons. The practice of FGM/C is highly concentrated in a band of African countries from the Atlantic coast to the Horn of Africa, in areas of the Middle East such as Iraq and Yemen, and in some countries in Asia like Indonesia. Girls exposed to FGM/C are at risk of immediate physical consequences such as severe pain, bleeding, and shock, difficulty in passing urine and faeces, and sepsis. Long-term consequences can include chronic pain and infections. FGM/C is a deeply entrenched social norm, perpetrated by families for a variety of reasons, but the results are harmful. FGM/C is a human rights issue that affects girls and women worldwide. The practice is decreasing, due to intensive advocacy activities of international, national, and grassroots agencies. An adolescent girl today is about a third less likely to be cut than 30 years ago. However, the rates of abandonment are not high enough, and change is not happening as rapidly as necessary. Multiple interventions have been implemented, but the evidence base on what works is lacking. We in reproductive health must work harder to find strategies to help communities and families abandon these harmful practices.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 292 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Unknown 291 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 56 19%
Student > Bachelor 36 12%
Researcher 28 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 5%
Other 49 17%
Unknown 88 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 20%
Social Sciences 46 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 14%
Psychology 14 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 2%
Other 34 12%
Unknown 94 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 July 2023.
All research outputs
#2,228,587
of 24,317,326 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#224
of 1,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,004
of 303,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#2
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,317,326 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 1,498 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 303,636 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.