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.

Background: Health care for women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) in the Global North is often described as sub-optimal and focused on maternity care. Specialist FGM/C services have emerged with little empirical evidence informing service provision. The objective of this scoping review is to identify the key features of FGM/C specialist care. Methods: The review was conducted in accordance with JBI methodology. Participants: organisations that provide specialist FGM/C care. Concept: components of specialist services. Context: high-income OECD countries. Eligibility criteria included primary research studies of any design from 2012 to 2022, providing a comprehensive description of specialist services. Seven bibliographic databases were searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library and MIC). The components of "specialist" (as opposed to "generalist") services were defined and then applied to an analysis of FGM/C specialist care. FGM/C specialist provision was categorised into primary (essential) and secondary features. Data were extracted and analysed descriptively through charting in tables and narrative summary. Results: Twenty-five papers described 20 unique specialist services across eleven high income countries. Primary features used to identify FGM/C specialist care were:-(i) Named as a Specialist service/clinic: 11/20 (55%); (ii) Identified expert lead: 13/20, (65%), either Midwives, Gynaecologists, Urologist, or Plastic Surgeons; (iii) Offering Specialist Interventions: surgical (i.e., reconstruction and/or deinfibulation) and/or psychological (i.e., trauma and/or sexual counselling); and (iv) Providing multidisciplinary care: 14/20 (70%). Eleven services (in Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, France, Belgium, and USA) provided reconstruction surgery, often integrated with psychosexual support. No services in UK, Norway, and Australia offered this. Six services (30%) provided trauma therapy only; 25% sexual and trauma therapy; 15% sexual therapy only; 30% did not provide counselling. Secondary features of specialist care were subdivided into (a) context of care and (b) the content of care. The context related to concepts such as provision of interpreters, cost of care, community engagement and whether theoretical underpinnings were described. Content referred to the model of care, whether safeguarding assessments were undertaken, and health education/information is provided. Conclusion: Overall, the features and composition of FGM/C specialist services varied considerably between, and sometimes within, countries. Global guidelines advocate that specialist care should include access to deinfibulation, mental health support, sexual counselling, and education and information. The review found that these were rarely all available. In some high-income countries women cannot access reconstruction surgery and notably, few services for non-pregnant women mentioned safeguarding. Furthermore, services for pregnant women rarely integrated trauma therapy or psychosexual support. The review highlights a need for counselling (both trauma and psychosexual) and culturally-appropriate sensitive safeguarding assessments to be embedded into care provision for non-pregnant as well as pregnant women. Further research is needed to extract the features of specialist services into a comprehensive framework which can be used to examine, compare, and evaluate FGM/C clinical specialist care to determine which clinical features deliver the best outcomes. Currently a geographical lottery appears to exist, not only within the UK, but also across the Global North.