ArticleBMC public health2020
Estimating utility value for female genital mutilation.
Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- What Makes the Time Tradeoff Tick? A Sociopsychological Explanation.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- The comparison of sexual function in types I and II of female genital mutilation.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- "You must cut that long and stinking thing": uncovering the lived experiences of uncircumcised pokot women in North-Eastern Uganda.BMC women's health · 2022Article
- Somalian women with female genital mutilation had increased risk of female sexual dysfunction: a cross-sectional observational study.Scientific reports · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFemale genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) is a clear violation of women's rights and can have adverse and irreversible health effects as well. Worldwide, more than 200 million women and girls have undergone FGM/C. Utility value of FGM/C has not been estimated yet, so we designed this study to extract the health utility value of FGM/C for the first time in the world.
methodsIn a cross-sectional study in Iran, 125 girls and women who underwent FGM/C procedure were examined by the trained midwives in order to determine its type. In addition, a questionnaire was completed for identifying the socio-demographic factors and extracting the health utility of these individuals. Health utility was measured using Time Trade-off method and also to determine the effects of the socio-demographic factors on the health utility a two-limit censored regression model was applied.
resultsThe mean and median of the health utility of women with FGM/C were 0.971 (SE: 0.003) and 0.968 (IQR: 1-0.95), respectively. Number of non-traders was 58 (46.4%) who reported perfect health utility. However, the mean of health utility among traders was 0.946 (SE: 0.002). Only type 1 (Clitoridectomy) and type 2 (Excision) FGM/C were seen in this study. Women with Type 1 FGM/C had significantly lower health utility value (Mean: 0.968, Median: 0.957) than their type 2 counterparts (Mean: 0.987, Median: 1.00). Moreover, women in the age group of 31-45 years (Mean: 0.962, Median: 0.956), single (Mean: 0.950, Median: 0.954), divorced (Mean: 0.951, Median: 0.950), employed (Mean: 0.959, Median: 0.956), and with supplementary insurance (Mean: 0.962, Median: 0.950) had significantly lower health utility than their counterparts.
conclusionFGM/C affects physical and psychological well-being of these individuals, resulting in a lack of personal and marital satisfaction, which ultimately leads to a 3% reduction in their health related quality of life. Therefore, preventing from this practice is very important and should be considered by health system policy makers more than before.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.