Cited by 33Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting IssuesUreteral procedures and complicationsGlobal Health and Surgery

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A survey on knowledge of female genital mutilation guidelines

Open access
Purchase, Thomas C.D., Lamoudi, Maya, Colman, Sarah, Allen, Siobhan, Latthe, Pallavi, Jolly, Kate·2013·Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica

Abstract

The increase in immigration from countries with a high prevalence of female genital mutilation (FGM) has highlighted the need for knowledge and sensitivity in this area of healthcare in high‐resource countries. We have surveyed with an online questionnaire 607 members, fellows and trainees of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) on knowledge about the RCOG guidelines for FGM. Completed training and more practical experience with women affected by FGM significantly increased knowledge. Many respondents were not aware of specialist services locally (22.9%) or how to access them (52.3%). Some areas of insufficient knowledge were identified, in particular in relation to psychiatric morbidity, HIV, hepatitis B and pelvic infection. More specialized training efforts might improve this aspect.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/aogs.12144

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • While medicalized FGM/C is found in greatest concentration in Egypt, Sudan, and Nigeria, health professionals in countries around the world have been approached with requests to cut girls and women.

    “While medicalized FGM/C is found in greatest concentration in three countries (Egypt, Sudan, and Nigeria), health professionals in countries around the world have been approached with requests to cut girls and women [ 49 – 53 ].”

    From Medicalized Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Contentious Practices and Persistent Debates (2018) · cites this paper as [51]

    The Introduction and Discussion address FGM as a healthcare issue in the UK and Europe, but do not report that health professionals around the world were asked to perform it. Our copy also does not identify Egypt, Sudan, and Nigeria as the countries with the greatest concentration of medicalized FGM/C. Searches for requests to cut girls or women and for those three countries found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Purchase, T. C. D., Lamoudi, M., Colman, S., Allen, S., Latthe, P., & Jolly, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • Birmingham Women's Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Jolly, Kate
Venue
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-05-10
Volume
92
Issue
7
Pages
858-861
ISSN
  • 0001-6349 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0412
OpenAlex
W1993886003
Cited by
33
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Ureteral procedures and complications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Global Health and Surgery
Keywords
female genital mutilation, clinical guidelines, guideline knowledge, obstetricians and gynecologists, expert services, access to services, psychiatric morbidity, HIV, hepatitis B, pelvic infection, immigrant women, professional training
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Female, United Kingdom, Gynecology, Humans, Obstetrics, Physicians, Surveys and Questionnaires, Referral and Consultation, Linear Models, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Circumcision, Female, Health Care Surveys

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review