ArticleBJGP open2021
Female genital mutilation - a blind spot in Dutch general practice? A case-control study.
Article in BJGP open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWomen with female genital mutilation or cutting (FGM/C) often suffer from physical and psychosexual problems related to FGM/C. As gatekeepers to the medical system, GPs are often the first to be consulted about these problems. It is as yet unknown if, and to what extent, Dutch GPs identify women with FGM/C or related health problems.
aimTo investigate how often Dutch GPs register FGM/C and related health problems. DESIGN &
settingA case-control study of anonymised patient records was performed in the Netherlands.
methodMedical records were checked for information on country of origin. Records of women, aged ≥15 years, from countries where FGM/C is practised were compared with those of a case-control.
resultsAlthough many migrants were registered with the participating GPs, information on country of origin was seldom recorded. Only 68 out of 16 700 patients were identified as women from countries where FGM/C is practised; 12 out of these 68 records contained information about the FGM/C status, but none on the type of FGM/C. There were no significant differences in health problems related to FGM/C between patients with FGM/C and the controls.
conclusionFGM/C may be a blind spot for GPs and registration of information on migration background could be improved. A larger sample in a future study is needed to confirm this finding. Given the growing global migration, awareness and knowledge on FGM/C, and other migration-related health issues should be part of GP training.
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.