ArticleBMJ open2026
Knowledge, training and clinical practice related to female genital mutilation/cutting among healthcare professionals in Austria: a cross-sectional online survey.
Article in BMJ open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess self-reported knowledge, training and clinical practices related to female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) among healthcare professionals in Austria and to identify profession-specific gaps relevant to prevention and care.
designCross-sectional online survey.
settingNationwide survey conducted in Austria between September 2023 and February 2024.
participantsA convenience sample of 537 healthcare professionals, including midwives (29%, n=157), gynaecologists (21%, n=113), general practitioners (18%, n=95), paediatricians (13%, n=72), and other (19%, n=100). Participants were recruited via professional associations.
main outcome measuresSelf-reported knowledge of FGM/C (including WHO typology, Austrian legislation and International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes), exposure to FGM/C training during professional education, clinical experience with patients from FGM/C-practising countries and comfort discussing FGM/C in clinical practice. Associations between professional group and outcome measures were analysed using logistic regression.
resultsKnowledge gaps were particularly pronounced as 63% of respondents were unfamiliar with legislation and 85% lacked knowledge of relevant ICD-10 codes. Compared with general practitioners, gynaecologists reported higher knowledge of legislation (adjusted OR (aOR)=4.75; 95% CI 2.47 to 9.14), traditional and cultural aspects (aOR=2.65; 95% CI 1.39 to 5.05) and ICD-10 codes (aOR=4.52; 95% CI 1.87 to 10.97). Only 34% (n=182) reported receiving any FGM/C training during professional education. Demand for additional training was high, particularly regarding legal frameworks (88%, n=474) and WHO typology (74%, n=397). Paediatricians were significantly less likely to feel comfortable initiating discussions about FGM/C (aOR=0.17; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.36) compared with general practitioners, whereas gynaecologists reported the highest comfort levels (aOR=1.44; 95% CI 0.64 to 3.28).
conclusionsSubstantial, profession-specific gaps in knowledge and training on FGM/C exist among healthcare professionals in Austria. Despite increasing availability of specialised services, insufficient integration of FGM/C into professional education may hinder effective prevention, identification and care. Targeted and systematic training, particularly for paediatricians and general practitioners, alongside national clinical guidelines may strengthen healthcare responses to FGM/C in Austria.
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.