Views of female genital mutilation survivors, men and health-care professionals on timing of deinfibulation surgery and NHS service provision: qualitative FGM Sister Study.
DEINFIBULATION
FEMALE CIRCUMCISION
FEMALE GENITAL CUTTING
FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION
FGM
HEALTH SERVICE PROVISION
INFIBULATION
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
SOUND OF SILENCE
Journal
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)
ISSN: 2046-4924
Titre abrégé: Health Technol Assess
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9706284
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2023
03 2023
Historique:
entrez:
22
3
2023
pubmed:
23
3
2023
medline:
24
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Female genital mutilation is an important UK health-care challenge. There are no health benefits of female genital mutilation, and it is associated with lifelong physical, psychological and sexual impacts. The annual cost to the NHS to care for survivors is £100M. Deinfibulation may improve the health and well-being of some women, but there is no consensus on the optimal timing of surgery for type 3 survivors. UK care provision is reportedly suboptimal. We aimed to explore the views of survivors, men and health-care professionals on the timing of deinfibulation surgery and NHS service provision. This was a qualitative study informed by the Sound of Silence framework. This framework is useful for researching sensitive issues and the health-care needs of marginalised populations. A total of 101 interviews with 44 survivors, 13 men and 44 health-care professionals were conducted, supplemented by two workshops with affected communities (participants, There was no clear consensus between groups on the optimal timing of deinfibulation. However, within groups, survivors expressed a preference for deinfibulation pre pregnancy; health-care professionals preferred antenatal deinfibulation, with the caveat that it should be the survivor's choice. There was no consensus among men. There was agreement that deinfibulation should take place in a hospital setting and be undertaken by a suitable health-care professional. Decision-making around deinfibulation was complex. Deficiencies in professionals' awareness, knowledge and understanding resulted in impacts on the provision of appropriate care. Although there were examples of good practice and positive care interactions, in general, service provision was opaque and remains suboptimal, with deficiencies most notable in mental health. Deinfibulation reportedly helps to mitigate some of the impacts of female genital mutilation. Interactions between survivors and health-care professionals were disproportionately framed around the law. The way in which services are planned and provided often silences the perspectives and preferences of survivors and their families. Only a minority of the interviews were conducted in a language other than English, and the recruitment of survivors was predominantly through maternity settings, which meant that some voices may not have been heard. The sample of men was relatively small, limiting interpretation. In general, service provision remains suboptimal and can silence the perspectives and preferences of survivors. Deinfibulation services need to be widely advertised and information should highlight that the procedure will be carried out in hospital by suitable health-care professionals and that a range of time points will be offered to facilitate choice. Future services should be developed with survivors to ensure that they are clinically and culturally appropriate. Guidelines should be updated to better reflect the needs of survivors and to ensure consistency in service provision. Research is needed to (1) map female genital mutilation service provision; (2) develop and test effective education to address deficits in awareness and knowledge for affected communities and health-care professionals; and (3) develop, monitor and evaluate clinically and culturally competent female genital mutilation services. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14710507. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme and will be published in full in Female genital mutilation (or cutting) involves changing or removing parts of a girl’s or woman’s genitalia when there is no medical reason to do so. Many women and girls who have been cut live in the UK, where female genital mutilation is illegal. Some girls and women who have been cut experience problems in getting pregnant and having their baby. There are four types of cutting. Type 3 involves cutting and sewing together the genitalia, leaving only a small hole. Women and girls with type 3 mutilation can have a small operation to open their vagina. We do not know when the best time is to have this operation. We would also like to know more about how NHS female genital mutilation services can best help women. To answer these questions, we talked to 141 people, who were women who have been cut, men and health-care professionals. They told us that there is no ideal time to have the operation. Women who have been cut would like the operation before they get pregnant, but health-care professionals would like women to have it during their pregnancy. Men were not sure when it should happen. They all agreed that the operation should take place in a hospital and be carried out by a skilled professional. The way that we support women and men could be better and we need to improve the help that is offered. Sometimes women and men did not know where to go for help or how to ask for help. Women, men and health-care professionals sometimes found it hard to talk about cutting. Some health professionals did not have the right skills to undertake the operation. They told us that they need more training and clearer guidance to ensure that women feel cared for and safe.
Sections du résumé
Background
Female genital mutilation is an important UK health-care challenge. There are no health benefits of female genital mutilation, and it is associated with lifelong physical, psychological and sexual impacts. The annual cost to the NHS to care for survivors is £100M. Deinfibulation may improve the health and well-being of some women, but there is no consensus on the optimal timing of surgery for type 3 survivors. UK care provision is reportedly suboptimal.
Objectives
We aimed to explore the views of survivors, men and health-care professionals on the timing of deinfibulation surgery and NHS service provision.
Methods
This was a qualitative study informed by the Sound of Silence framework. This framework is useful for researching sensitive issues and the health-care needs of marginalised populations. A total of 101 interviews with 44 survivors, 13 men and 44 health-care professionals were conducted, supplemented by two workshops with affected communities (participants,
Results
There was no clear consensus between groups on the optimal timing of deinfibulation. However, within groups, survivors expressed a preference for deinfibulation pre pregnancy; health-care professionals preferred antenatal deinfibulation, with the caveat that it should be the survivor's choice. There was no consensus among men. There was agreement that deinfibulation should take place in a hospital setting and be undertaken by a suitable health-care professional. Decision-making around deinfibulation was complex. Deficiencies in professionals' awareness, knowledge and understanding resulted in impacts on the provision of appropriate care. Although there were examples of good practice and positive care interactions, in general, service provision was opaque and remains suboptimal, with deficiencies most notable in mental health. Deinfibulation reportedly helps to mitigate some of the impacts of female genital mutilation. Interactions between survivors and health-care professionals were disproportionately framed around the law. The way in which services are planned and provided often silences the perspectives and preferences of survivors and their families.
Limitations
Only a minority of the interviews were conducted in a language other than English, and the recruitment of survivors was predominantly through maternity settings, which meant that some voices may not have been heard. The sample of men was relatively small, limiting interpretation.
Conclusions
In general, service provision remains suboptimal and can silence the perspectives and preferences of survivors. Deinfibulation services need to be widely advertised and information should highlight that the procedure will be carried out in hospital by suitable health-care professionals and that a range of time points will be offered to facilitate choice. Future services should be developed with survivors to ensure that they are clinically and culturally appropriate. Guidelines should be updated to better reflect the needs of survivors and to ensure consistency in service provision.
Future work
Research is needed to (1) map female genital mutilation service provision; (2) develop and test effective education to address deficits in awareness and knowledge for affected communities and health-care professionals; and (3) develop, monitor and evaluate clinically and culturally competent female genital mutilation services.
Trial registration
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14710507.
Funding
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme and will be published in full in
Female genital mutilation (or cutting) involves changing or removing parts of a girl’s or woman’s genitalia when there is no medical reason to do so. Many women and girls who have been cut live in the UK, where female genital mutilation is illegal. Some girls and women who have been cut experience problems in getting pregnant and having their baby. There are four types of cutting. Type 3 involves cutting and sewing together the genitalia, leaving only a small hole. Women and girls with type 3 mutilation can have a small operation to open their vagina. We do not know when the best time is to have this operation. We would also like to know more about how NHS female genital mutilation services can best help women. To answer these questions, we talked to 141 people, who were women who have been cut, men and health-care professionals. They told us that there is no ideal time to have the operation. Women who have been cut would like the operation before they get pregnant, but health-care professionals would like women to have it during their pregnancy. Men were not sure when it should happen. They all agreed that the operation should take place in a hospital and be carried out by a skilled professional. The way that we support women and men could be better and we need to improve the help that is offered. Sometimes women and men did not know where to go for help or how to ask for help. Women, men and health-care professionals sometimes found it hard to talk about cutting. Some health professionals did not have the right skills to undertake the operation. They told us that they need more training and clearer guidance to ensure that women feel cared for and safe.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Female genital mutilation (or cutting) involves changing or removing parts of a girl’s or woman’s genitalia when there is no medical reason to do so. Many women and girls who have been cut live in the UK, where female genital mutilation is illegal. Some girls and women who have been cut experience problems in getting pregnant and having their baby. There are four types of cutting. Type 3 involves cutting and sewing together the genitalia, leaving only a small hole. Women and girls with type 3 mutilation can have a small operation to open their vagina. We do not know when the best time is to have this operation. We would also like to know more about how NHS female genital mutilation services can best help women. To answer these questions, we talked to 141 people, who were women who have been cut, men and health-care professionals. They told us that there is no ideal time to have the operation. Women who have been cut would like the operation before they get pregnant, but health-care professionals would like women to have it during their pregnancy. Men were not sure when it should happen. They all agreed that the operation should take place in a hospital and be carried out by a skilled professional. The way that we support women and men could be better and we need to improve the help that is offered. Sometimes women and men did not know where to go for help or how to ask for help. Women, men and health-care professionals sometimes found it hard to talk about cutting. Some health professionals did not have the right skills to undertake the operation. They told us that they need more training and clearer guidance to ensure that women feel cared for and safe.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36946235
doi: 10.3310/JHWE4771
pmc: PMC10041342
doi:
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN14710507']
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1-113Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 16/78/04
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Nurse Educ Today. 2015 Feb;35(2):333-40
pubmed: 25466790
Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:1-28
pubmed: 16533107
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
BMJ Open. 2019 May 29;9(5):e027452
pubmed: 31147364
BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 17;9(10):e034140
pubmed: 31628134
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 28;4:CD004667
pubmed: 27121907
BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Feb;23(2):106-15
pubmed: 24019507
Soc Sci Med. 2001 Dec;53(11):1455-60
pubmed: 11710420
J Transcult Nurs. 2006 Jan;17(1):50-7
pubmed: 16410436
Glob Health Action. 2016 Oct 04;9:31489
pubmed: 27707452
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 7;12(2):e0170988
pubmed: 28170443
Eur Psychiatry. 2015 Mar;30(3):431-40
pubmed: 25725596
Health Care Manage Rev. 2011 Oct-Dec;36(4):359-68
pubmed: 21691210
Res Involv Engagem. 2018 Sep 17;4:29
pubmed: 30237901
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013 Jun;287(6):1137-49
pubmed: 23315098
BMC Public Health. 2015 Oct 08;15:1034
pubmed: 26449728
Reprod Health Matters. 2010 Nov;18(36):181-90
pubmed: 21111362
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017 May 15;42(10):764-769
pubmed: 27748701
Midwifery. 2013 Feb;29(2):154-8
pubmed: 23084491
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 Feb;136 Suppl 1:21-29
pubmed: 28164285
BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2019 Oct 24;:
pubmed: 31649019
Oncol Nurs Forum. 2014 Sep;41(5):545-7
pubmed: 25158659
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015 Oct;131(1):35-40
pubmed: 26118329
J Adv Nurs. 2015 Jan;71(1):3-23
pubmed: 25113235
Nurs Philos. 2009 Jul;10(3):167-79
pubmed: 19527438
BMJ Open. 2014 Nov 21;4(11):e006316
pubmed: 25416059
Health Commun. 2004;16(2):255-71
pubmed: 15090288
BJOG. 2015 Feb;122(3):294-303
pubmed: 25514892
BMJ Open. 2016 Jan 07;6(1):e009846
pubmed: 26743705
Obstet Gynecol Int. 2013;2013:496564
pubmed: 23878544
Maturitas. 2015 Jan;80(1):48-51
pubmed: 25466303
Nurse Res. 2002;9(4):7-19
pubmed: 12149898
Br J Pain. 2015 Feb;9(1):70-2
pubmed: 26516559
BJPsych Bull. 2015 Dec;39(6):273-7
pubmed: 26755984
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 Feb;136 Suppl 1:3-12
pubmed: 28164287
Obstet Gynecol Int. 2014;2014:542859
pubmed: 25505915
PLoS Med. 2020 Mar 31;17(3):e1003088
pubmed: 32231359
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 Feb;136 Suppl 1:65-71
pubmed: 28164292
J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2014;43(6):851-61
pubmed: 25350675
Glob Public Health. 2019 Aug;14(8):1139-1152
pubmed: 30724649
Arch Iran Med. 2016 Nov;19(11):805-811
pubmed: 27845551
Health Equity. 2019 Feb 20;3(1):36-46
pubmed: 30805570
Cult Health Sex. 2005 Sep-Oct;7(5):443-61
pubmed: 16864215
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001 Aug;74(2):179-85
pubmed: 11502298
Br J Gen Pract. 2008 Dec;58(557):e1-11
pubmed: 19068152
Midwifery. 2015 Jan;31(1):229-38
pubmed: 25246318
BMJ Open. 2018 Jun 30;8(6):e021430
pubmed: 29961028
Br J Nurs. 2016 Sep 22;25(17):978-983
pubmed: 27666099
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Feb 26;17(5):
pubmed: 32110898
Hastings Cent Rep. 2012 Nov-Dec;42(6):19-27
pubmed: 23138367
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 Feb;136 Suppl 1:30-33
pubmed: 28164295
Oncol Nurs Forum. 2007 Nov;34(6):1187-94
pubmed: 18024345
Birth. 2019 Mar;46(1):3-14
pubmed: 29954045
Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2009 Oct;23(5):343-50
pubmed: 19766925
Lancet. 2006 Jun 3;367(9525):1835-41
pubmed: 16753486
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 Feb;136 Suppl 1:43-46
pubmed: 28164291
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 4;14(3):e0211829
pubmed: 30830904
Sex Reprod Healthc. 2016 Dec;10:3-8
pubmed: 27938869
J Dent Educ. 2000 Aug;64(8):616-8
pubmed: 10972509
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016 Dec;21(6):474-482
pubmed: 27652839
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 Feb;136 Suppl 1:13-20
pubmed: 28164296
BMJ. 2019 Feb 4;364:l546
pubmed: 30718241
Qual Health Res. 2016 Nov;26(13):1753-1760
pubmed: 26613970
Midwifery. 2014 Mar;30(3):282-8
pubmed: 23747293
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 21;18(1):148
pubmed: 30463515
Bull World Health Organ. 2010 Apr;88(4):281-8
pubmed: 20431792
Nurs Health Sci. 2010 Sep 1;12(3):369-74
pubmed: 20727089
BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2014 Apr 24;14:13
pubmed: 24758156
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Jul 15;4(4):e001553
pubmed: 31406589
BMJ. 2019 Mar 4;364:l915
pubmed: 30833282
Int J Impot Res. 2022 Jan 15;:
pubmed: 35034104
Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51
pubmed: 24979285
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021 Apr;100(4):579-586
pubmed: 33305361
Qual Health Res. 2016 Nov;26(13):1802-1811
pubmed: 27340178
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2018 Jun;10(6):807-815
pubmed: 30025784
Postgrad Med J. 2005 Mar;81(953):141-7
pubmed: 15749788