Preferences for deinfibulation (opening) surgery and female genital mutilation service provision: A qualitative study
AuthorsJones, Laura L.
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractObjective To explore the views of female genital mutilation (FGM) survivors, men and healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the timing of deinfibulation surgery and NHS service provision. Design Qualitative study informed by the sound of silence framework. Setting Survivors and men were recruited from three FGM prevalent areas of England. HCPs and stakeholders were from across the UK. Sample Forty-four survivors, 13 men and 44 HCPs. Ten participants at two community workshops and 30 stakeholders at a national workshop. Methods Hybrid framework analysis of 101 interviews and three workshops. Results There was no consensus across groups on the optimal timing of deinfibulation for survivors who wished to be deinfibulated. Within group, survivors expressed a preference for deinfibulation pre-pregnancy and HCPs antenatal deinfibulation. There was no consensus for men. Participants reported that deinfibulation should take place in a hospital setting and be undertaken by a suitable HCP. Decision making around deinfibulation was complex but for those who underwent surgery it helped to mitigate FGM impacts. Although there were examples of good practice, in general, FGM service provision was suboptimal. Conclusion Deinfibulation services need to be widely advertised. Information should highlight that the procedure can be carried out at different time points, according to preference, and in a hospital by suitable HCPs. Future services should ideally be developed with survivors, to ensure that they are clinically and culturally appropriate. Guidelines would benefit from being updated to reflect the needs of survivors and to ensure consistency in provision.
CitationJones, L.L., Costello, B.D., Danks, E. et al. (2023) Preferences for deinfibulation (opening) surgery and female genital mutilation service provision: A qualitative study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 130(5), pp.531–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17358
JournalBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Description© 2022 The Authors. Published by Wiley. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17358
SponsorsThis study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (project reference 16/78/04).
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/