ArticleReproductive health2026
Understanding the implementation of specialist maternity services for pregnant women with FGM/C in Germany: a situation analysis applying normalization process theory.
Article in Reproductive health, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFemale Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) comprises all procedures involving the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or any other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. There are about 600.000 women in Europe estimated to live with the consequences of FGM/C, of whom about 104.000 are residing in Germany. Less is known about maternity service provision for affected women living in Germany. An exploratory case study was conducted to examine the implementation of specialist services for women with FGM/C in a German Maternity Unit. This publication reports findings from a situation analysis exploring how specialist services were embedded into routine care.
methodsData was collected using a mixed-methods design. A retrospective data analysis of clinical records from women with FGM/C who gave birth between 2020 and 2023 was conducted. Qualitative data provided insights of maternal health professionals experiences working within a specialist service for women with FGM/C. The two datasets were analyzed separately and then interpreted together using Normalization Process Theory. This approach was chosen to understand the underlying mechanisms involved in implementing a complex intervention inside a real-life context.
resultsResults revealed that services were operationalized by using a trauma-informed approach adopted to individual needs and recorded inside women's birth plans. Supportive mechanisms during the implementation were the presence of experienced colleagues, champions with sufficient position of authority in the service, an intrinsic motivation amongst staff, and accessible expert advice. Challenges were late midwifery contact, lack of time during consultations and fragmented postnatal care. Areas for further research could explore opportunities to address service fragmentation and focus on mechanisms to improve clinical coding.
conclusionsSpecialist maternity services for women with FGM/C requires trauma-informed care, interprofessional collaboration and structural support. Systemic barriers such as fragmented care pathways, late access to midwifery care, and limited consultation time need to be further addressed to ensure equitable care in the long term. The best-practice model provides insights into the delivery of individualized maternity care for women affected by FGM/C and may inform the development of future models of care.
trial registrationDRKS00030704 (15.02.2024).
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.