Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31331357›Full record

SynthesisReproductive health2019

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

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

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Reproductive health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. The Perception of African Immigrant Women Living in Spain Regarding the Persistence of FGM.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Carolyne NjueThe Australian Centre for Public and Population Health Research, Faculty of Public Health, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia. Carolyne.Njue@uts.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9325-3565
Jamlick KarumbiMinistry of Health, PO Box 30016-00100, Nairobi, Kenya.
Tammary EshoCommunity and Public Health, Technical University of Kenya, PO Box 52428-00202, Nairobi, Kenya.
Nesrin VarolSydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, 135 Macquarie St, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia.
Angela DawsonThe Australian Centre for Public and Population Health Research, Faculty of Public Health, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFemale 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.

methodsWe 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.

findingsEleven 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.

conclusionFGM 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.

Indexed as

Developed CountriesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeCircumcision, FemaleDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansFemale genital mutilationHealth preventionHigh-income countriesMigrantsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31331357
PMCPMC6647166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.