MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212965798 · doi:10.1186/s12978-022-01356-3

Woman and girl-centred care for those affected by female genital mutilation: a scoping review of provider tools and guidelines

2022· review· en· W4212965798 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueReproductive Health · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFemale Genital Mutilation/Cutting Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research Council
KeywordsGirlSafeguardingReproductive healthGovernment (linguistics)MedicineReproductive medicineCritical appraisalNursingHealth careFemale circumcisionFamily medicinePublic healthPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthGynecologyAlternative medicinePopulationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A woman and girl centred, rights-based approach to health care is critical to achieving sexual and reproductive health. However, women with female genital mutilation in high-income countries have been found to receive sub-optimal care. This study examined documents guiding clinicians in health and community service settings in English-speaking high-income countries to identify approaches to ensure quality women and girl-centred care for those with or at risk of female genital mutilation. METHOD: We undertook a scoping review using the integrative model of patient-centredness to identify principles, enablers, and activities to facilitate woman and girl-centred care interactions. We developed an inclusion criterion to identify documents such as guidance statements and tools and technical guidelines, procedural documents and clinical practice guidelines. We searched the databases and websites of health professional associations, ministries of health, hospitals, national, state and local government and non-government organisations working in female genital mutilation in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, The United States, New Zealand, and Australia. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool was used to appraise screened documents. FINDINGS: One-hundred and twenty-four documents were included in this scoping review; 88 were developed in the United Kingdom, 20 in Australia, nine in the United States, three in Canada, two in New Zealand and two in Ireland. The focus of documents from the United Kingdom on multi-professional safeguarding (62), while those retrieved from Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and the US focused on clinical practice. Twelve percent of the included documents contained references to all principles of patient-centred care, and only one document spoke to all principles, enablers and activities. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the need to improve the female genital mutilation-related guidance provided to professionals to care for and protect women and girls. Professionals need to involve women and girls with or at risk of female genital mutilation in the co-design of guidelines and tools and evaluation of them and the co-production of health care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.216
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it