ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
Healthcare and community perspectives on female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C): a qualitative study.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic accuracy of IHDS and MoCA in screening for HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders among adults living with HIV in Ethiopia.International journal of mental health systems · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) continues to pose a significant global public health challenge. Millions of women and girls affected by this practice face challenges in accessing adequate healthcare and support services, underscoring the critical need for further ongoing research, the development of comprehensive policies, and evidence-based clinical guidelines to ensure the provision of the highest attainable quality of care while advancing international efforts to eliminate FGM/C worldwide. Guided by the social ecological framework (SEM), this exploratory qualitative study aimed to explore who and what controls the practice and continuation of FGM/C, its medicalisation, associated health impacts, healthcare, and potential prevention strategies. Methods: This qualitative descriptive study was conducted among Ethiopians living in Australia between 2024 and 2025. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in Amharic with 23 purposively selected participants, including professionals with expertise and experience in FGM/C and non-professionals with lived cultural knowledge and experience. The study employed SEM to explore multi-level drivers influencing the practice, impacts, medicalisation, healthcare needs, and prevention strategies related to FGM/C. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis framework supported by NVivo-14 software. Findings: Results from the thematic analysis, guided by the SEM, revealed interconnected drivers and impacts of FGM/C across multiple levels. At the individual level, FGM/C was linked to a lack of bodily autonomy for women and girls, significant health consequences, and substantial unmet healthcare needs. At the interpersonal level, FGM/C was described as both a rite of passage and an inherited family tradition, reinforced by family and peer pressure, misconceptions, myths, and fear of social rejection. At the community level, FGM/C was deeply rooted in sociocultural norms, seen as a way of protecting girls from sexual violence and rape and ensuring marriageability. At the institutional and policy level, challenges included the medicalisation of FGM/C, complexities surrounding deinfibulation and reinfibulation, and the challenges to prevention and elimination strategies. Interpretation: The findings demonstrated that the key drivers and impacts of FGM/C are intertwined across various levels of the SEM, emphasising the need for multi-level strategies in healthcare, prevention, and elimination efforts. Funding: None.
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.