The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Health care providers’ and mothers’ perceptions about the medicalization of female genital mutilation or cutting in Egypt: a cross-sectional qualitative study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) is a traditional harmful practice that has been prevalent in Egypt for many years. The medicalization of FGM/C has been increasing significantly in Egypt making it the country with the highest rate of medicalization. In this qualitative study, we explored the drivers and motives behind why healthcare professionals perform FGM/C and why mothers rely on them to perform the practice on their daughters. METHODS: The study drew on a "mystery client" approach, coupled with in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) with health care providers (i.e. physicians and nurses) and mothers. It was conducted in three geographic areas in Egypt: Cairo, Assiut and Al Gharbeya. RESULTS: Study findings suggest that parents who seek medicalized cutting often do so to minimize health risks while conforming to social expectations. Thus, the factors that support FGM/C overlap with the factors that support medicalization. For many mothers and healthcare providers, adherence to community customs and traditions was the most important motive to practice FGM/C. Also, the social construction of girls' well-being and bodily beauty makes FGM/C a perceived necessity which lays the ground for stigmatization against uncut girls. Finally, the language around FGM/C is being reframed by many healthcare providers as a cosmetic surgery. Such reframing may be one way for providers to overcome the law against FGM/C and market the operation to the clients. CONCLUSION: These contradictions and contestations highlighted in this study among mothers and healthcare providers suggest that legal, moral and social norms that underpin FGM/C practice are not harmonized and would thus lead to a further rise in the medicalization of FGM/C. This also highlights the critical role that health providers can play in efforts to drive the abandonment of FGM/C in Egypt.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In terms of physical implications, for instance, the level of harm or benefit caused by genital cutting is a function of several factors that do not reliably track biological sex categories.”
From Reconsidering the role of patriarchy in upholding female genital modifications: analysis of contemporary and pre-industrial societies (2023) · cites this paper as [22]
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
Guest, G., MacQueen, K., & Namey, E. (2012) · doi:10.4135/9781483384436 · Cited by 7,924
Egypt Demographic and Health Survey 1992.
El‐Zanaty, F., Hussein, E. M., Shawky, G. A., Way, A. A., & Kishor, S. (1993) · Cited by 246
The medicalization of female “circumcision”: harm reduction or promotion of a dangerous practice?
Shell-Duncan, B. (2001) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00208-2 · Cited by 233
The decline of female circumcision in Egypt: evidence and interpretation
El-Gibaly, O., Ibrahim, B., Mensch, B. S., & Clark, W. H. (2002) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00020-x · Cited by 121
Self-citationMedicalization of female genital mutilation/cutting
Serour, G. I. (2013) · African Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/j.afju.2013.02.004 · Cited by 82
Doucet, M., Pallitto, C., & Groleau, D. (2017) · Reproductive Health · doi:10.1186/s12978-017-0306-5 · Cited by 71
Medicalized Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Contentious Practices and Persistent Debates
Kimani, S., & Shell-Duncan, B. (2018) · Current Sexual Health Reports · doi:10.1007/s11930-018-0140-y · Cited by 65
Female genital mutilation: knowledge, attitude and practice among nurses.
Onuh, S. O., Igberase, G. O., Umeora, J. O. U., Okogbenin, S. A., Otoide, V. O., & Gharoro, E. P. (2006) · PubMed Central · Cited by 60
Awareness and predictors of female genital mutilation/cutting among young health advocates
Abolfotouh, M. A., Abolfotouh, S. M., & Zakaria, A. (2015) · International Journal of Women s Health · doi:10.2147/ijwh.s78664 · Cited by 40
Medicalization of female genital cutting in Egypt.
Refaat, A. H. (2010) · PubMed · Cited by 36
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Shell-Duncan B, Njue C, Moore Z. The medicalization of female genital mutilation /cutting: what do the data reveal? Evidence to end FGM/C: research to help women thrive. New York: Population Council; 2017.
- The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). ACOG advises against cosmetic vaginal procedures due to lack of safety and efficacy data. Washington DC: ACOG; 2007. http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/pressreleases .
Cited by
Gruenbaum, E., Earp, B. D., & Shweder, R. A. (2023) · International Journal of Impotence Research · doi:10.1038/s41443-022-00581-5 · Cited by 31
“FGM” vs. female “cosmetic” surgeries: why do they continue to be treated separately?
Shahvisi, A. (2023) · International Journal of Impotence Research · doi:10.1038/s41443-021-00514-8 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- El-Gibaly, O., Aziz, M., & Abou Hussein, S.
- Affiliations
- Assiut University (EG)
- Venue
- BMC International Health and Human Rights
- Published
- 2019-08-27
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 26-26
- ISSN
- 1472-698X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6712689
- OpenAlex
- W2970889258
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 3.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (tdm)
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
- Locations
- BMC International Health and Human Rights (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Population Council
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Issues
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Genital Health and Disease
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Gender, Health, and Social Inequality
- Keywords
- female genital mutilation, healthcare providers' perceptions, maternal perceptions, Egypt, harmful traditional practices, social norms, community customs
- MeSH terms
- Cross-Sectional Studies, Culture, Egypt, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Mothers, Motivation, Focus Groups, Circumcision, Female, Qualitative Research, Medicalization
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
