ArticlePloS one2020
A system analysis of the mental health services in Norway and its availability to women with female genital mutilation.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), coercion, and mental health outcomes in psychiatric inpatient care: a national mixed-methods study comparing immigrant and majority populations.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Examining the key features of specialist health service provision for women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) in the Global North: a scoping review.Frontiers in global women's health · 2024Article
- Religion, Health, and Life Satisfaction Among Somali and Gambian Women in Norway.Journal of religion and health · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis article explores mental health services in Norway and their availability for women subjected to female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). The article focus on the system of communication and referrals from the perspective of health workers, and aims to identify bottlenecks in the system, what and where they are to be found, and analyze how different mental health services deal with Sub Saharan African (SSA) women in general, but in particular with respect to FGM/C.
methodThe study was conducted in Oslo, Norway, using a qualitative fieldwork research design, with the use of purposeful sampling, and a semi-structural guideline. One hundred interviews were done with general practitioners (GPs), gynecologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, midwives and nurses. ANALYSIS: A system analysis is applied using socio-cybernetics as a tool to identify the flow of communication and referrals of patients.
findingsThe study shows that borders of subsystems, silencing mechanisms, regulations and "attitudes" of the system can lead to women with SSA background having difficulty getting access to the specialist services. High standards for referral letters, waiting lists, out pushing to the lower levels, insecurities around treatment and deference rules silencing mental health issues during consultancies, have a negative impact on the accessibility of services. Consequences are that mental health problems due to FGM/C are under-investigated, under-referred, and under-treated and a silenced problem within the mental health services for women.
conclusionA better integration of subsystems at the specialist level with the GP scheme is necessary, as well as providing competence on FGM/C to the different levels. It is also important to strengthen and integrating the services at the Municipal level and provide information to SSA women about the low threshold services.
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.