ArticleWomen's health (London, England)
Social media representation of female genital cutting: A YouTube analysis.
Article in Women's health (London, England). 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.
- Six aspects of female genital mutilation education (SAFE) model: findings from a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Contextual determinants of generational continuation of female genital mutilation among women of reproductive age in nigeria: analysis of the 2018 demographic and health survey.Reproductive health · 2024Article
- The Influence of Social Media on the Perception of Autism Spectrum Disorders: Content Analysis of Public Discourse on YouTube Videos.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Use of machine learning methods to understand discussions of female genital mutilation/cutting on social media.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFemale genital cutting is a practice that has incited controversy and conflicting discourses across the international community. There is a need to analyze social media data on the portrayal of the practice in order to gather insights and inform strategic planning and interventions design. This study aims to explore and describe the portrayal of female genital cutting in the comments section of YouTube comment posts.
methodsThis mixed-method study employs a content analysis approach with a sequential exploratory design. A total of 150 YouTube comment posts were analyzed through qualitative content analysis and quantitative descriptive content analysis on NVivo 11 and Microsoft Excel, respectively.
resultsSalient subthemes from the qualitative component included likening female genital cutting with male genital cutting, differentiating female genital cutting from male genital cutting, branding female genital cutting as a harmful and unethical practice, branding female genital cutting as a normal tradition, contribution of religion and culture to female genital cutting, gender inequality issues, and the need for education or cultural relativism to change or cope with the practice. The quantitative component identified neutral, positive, mixed, and neutral tones; and formal, colloquial, and mixed language types; as well as targets of stigma with patterns in the themes.
conclusionThe portrayal of female genital cutting in the YouTube comment posts revealed the range of perceptions, beliefs, and opinions of users with various stances on the practice. Study findings are useful for strategic planning and the development of interventions with informative goals. Study findings can also help to gage and evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs that aim to reduce misinformation about female genital cutting or aim to reduce stigmas surrounding the practice.
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.