Counselling professionals’ awareness and understanding of female genital mutilation/cutting: Training needs for working therapeutically with survivors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is a dearth of literature that has looked at the psychological impact of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), and little is known about the understanding and awareness of FGM/C amongst counselling professionals. Method: An online survey was completed by 2073 BACP members. The survey covered four broad themes: demographics; awareness and understanding of FGM/C; experience of working therapeutically with survivors; and FGM/C training. Descriptive and inferential analyses were undertaken on quantitative data, and thematic content analysis was undertaken on qualitative data. Results: Only a small proportion of respondents (10%) had knowingly worked with survivors of FGM/C. Overall, respondents lacked confidence in their awareness and understanding of FGM/C, including their safeguarding duties. Having cultural respect, knowledge and understanding was perceived as the most helpful factor when working with this client group. Less than a quarter of respondents had undertaken any training with regard to FGM/C, although the vast majority expressed a desire to do so. Discussion: This research has highlighted the importance of improving signposting to existing training and educational resources around FGM/C, as well as the need to develop new resources where appropriate. The importance of embedding cultural competency into core practitioner training, not just training specific to FGM/C, is paramount.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it