| Title |
Female genital mutilation/cutting: risk management and strategies for social workers and health care professionals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/rmhp.s62091 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Susan Costello |
| Abstract |
Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) is a traditional practice originating in Africa. Its worst forms cause irreparable harm to girls and women and have no medical justification. Based on a literature review of global responses to FGM/C and conversations with Australian women who migrated from FGM/C practicing countries, this paper provides some background on FGM/C and its epidemiology, outlining its prevalence, types, and health risks and complications for women and girls. It discusses risk-prevention strategies, first, for health practitioners in identifying, screening, and supporting women affected by FGM/C and, second, for welfare and social workers and health care professionals to identify, work with, and prevent girls from being cut. Consistent with international trends in addressing the risks of FGM/C, the paper suggests practice responses for coordinated responses between professionals, communities from practicing countries, and governments of different countries. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 126 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 11% |
| Researcher | 12 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 17% |
| Unknown | 39 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 19 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 13% |
| Unknown | 47 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,791,662
of 23,708,357 outputs
Outputs from Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
#54
of 657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,462
of 391,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,708,357 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 657 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 391,203 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them