Abstract
Objective: 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.
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 531-540 |
| Journal | BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology |
| Volume | 130 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| Early online date | 26 Dec 2022 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2 Mar 2023 |
Keywords
- deinfibulation
- female circumcision
- female genital cutting
- female genital mutilation
- qualitative research
- sound of silence
- RESEARCH ARTICLE
- RESEARCH ARTICLES
