Effectiveness of female genital mutilation/cutting education for health professionals: An integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A plethora of research has identified the lack of educational opportunities for health professionals to support the biopsychosocial and cultural needs of women who have experienced female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). As a result, some women with FGM/C can feel unsupported, discriminated against and fear to communicate their concerns with health providers. The aim of this review is to identify studies that have investigated the effectiveness of FGM/C education for health professionals. METHOD: Toronto and Remington's six-step framework for conducting an integrative literature review was used to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. Searches were conducted across five primary databases and grey literature, between August and October 2021. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools for quasi-experimental studies was used to critically appraise included studies. The findings of the search were reported using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of five studies met the criteria for inclusion. Studies examined education provided to midwives, nurses, obstetricians, gynaecologists, psychosexual counsellors and student nurses, from England, USA, Mali and Kenya. All studies demonstrated that the implementation of FGM/C education was effective in improving learning outcomes (knowledge, attitude and self-efficacy), However, the quality rating of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate and limited inferential analysis reported. CONCLUSION: This review confirms that FGM/C education, which is informed by evidence and developed in collaboration with practicing communities, is an effective way of improving FGM/C knowledge and attitudes among health professionals. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework Register 10.17605/OSF.IO/SMJHX.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".