Strategies for Sexual Health Promotion: A Qualitative Inquiry Into the Experiences of Female Genital Cutting, Circumcision, or Mutilation Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although female genital cutting, circumcision, or mutilation (FGC/M) can substantially affect survivors' sexual health, there is limited research on the strategies they use to promote their sexual health. Using intersectionality, this interpretive description study aimed to explore and describe the perspectives and experiences of FGC/M survivors in Canada regarding their sexuality and their sexual health to identify self-driven sexual health promotion strategies. Based on semi-structured interviews with 27 women who underwent FGC/M and were currently living in Canada, we inductively identified three themes: (a) Challenging norms and striving for sexual liberation by educating oneself; (b) Cultivating sexual agency through resilience; and (c) Building a community of care to support sexual empowerment. This study offers guidance to both FGC/M survivors and their healthcare providers on potential sexual health promotion strategies based on education, action, and support. It is a first step toward understanding the sexual health of FGC/M survivors from a global and holistic perspective, moving beyond a narrow focus on anatomical and physiological functioning.
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 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 | 0.027 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".