ArticleWomen's health (London, England)
Functional need or personal choice: Medical professionals' understanding and framing of performing female genital cosmetic procedures.
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. 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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFemale genital cosmetic procedures (FGCPs) are becoming increasingly common but remain highly stigmatised and contested. This raises the question of how healthcare professionals justify performing FGCPs in such a context.
objectivesTo understand how medical professionals (MPs) justify their involvement in FGCPs within a context of social and professional scrutiny.
designQualitative interview study using discursive thematic analysis.
methodsWe conducted 11 in-depth interviews with plastic surgeons and gynaecologists performing FGCPs in Belgium and the Netherlands.
resultsMPs employ two main discursive framings to justify performing FGCPs. The
conclusionMPs frame FGCPs in terms of women's health and choice, helping to legitimise them as ethical care. These framings, however, obscure key tensions - between function and aesthetics, autonomy and clinical judgement, and medical versus cultural motivations. Examining these discursive dynamics reveals how FGCPs are made acceptable within a contested field.
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.