CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting IssuesGenital Health and DiseaseGlobal Health and Surgery

Attitudes of health care providers regarding female genital mutilation and its medicalization in Guinea

Open access
Balde, Mamadou Dioulde, O’Neill, Sarah, Sall, Alpha Oumar, Balde, Mamadou Bailo, Soumah, Anne Marie, Diallo, BoubacarAlpha, Pallitto, Christina Catherine·2021·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0249998PMC PMC8118326
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Guinea has a high prevalence of female genital mutilation (FGM) (95%) and it is a major concern affecting the health and the welfare of women and girls. Population-based surveys suggest that health care providers are implicated in carrying out the practice (medicalization). To understand the attitudes of health care providers related to FGM and its medicalization as well as the potential role of the health sector in addressing this practice, a study was conducted in Guinea to inform the development of an intervention for the health sector to prevent and respond to this harmful practice. Methodology: Formative research was conducted using a mixed-methods approach, including qualitative in-depth interviews with health care providers and other key informants as well as questionnaires with 150 health care providers. Data collection was carried out in the provinces of Faranah and Labé and in the capital, Conakry. Results: The majority of health care providers participating in this study were opposed to FGM and its medicalization. Survey data showed that 94% believed that it was a serious problem; 89% felt that it violated the rights of girls and women and 81% supported criminalization. However, within the health sector, there is no enforcement or accountability to the national law banning the practice. Despite opposition to the practice, many (38%) felt that FGM limited promiscuity and 7% believed that it was a good practice. Conclusion: Health care providers could have an important role in communicating with patients and passing on prevention messages that can contribute to the abandonment of the practice. Understanding their beliefs is a key step in developing these approaches.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0249998

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • The level of harm or benefit caused by genital cutting is a function of several factors that do not reliably track biological sex categories.

    “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 [23]

    The Introduction describes different types of female genital cutting and its health risks. The Discussion (Attitudes driving medicalization) reports that some midwives perceived cutting by a health-care provider as safer than cutting by a traditional exciser, but presents this as a debated belief. The paper does not compare biological sex categories or establish that harm or benefit fails to track them. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [1]World Health Organization. WHO Guidelines on the Management of Health Complications from Female Genital Mutilation. Geneva: WHO; 2016 27359024

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Balde, M. D., O’Neill, S., Sall, A. O., Balde, M. B., Soumah, A. M., Diallo, B., & Pallitto, C. C.
Affiliations
  • Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2021-05-13
Volume
16
Issue
5
Pages
e0249998
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0249998
PMC
PMC8118326
OpenAlex
W3163567806
Cited by
17
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3
FWCI
1.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Government of Norway
  • UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Genital Health and Disease
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Global Health and Surgery
Keywords
female genital mutilation, clinician attitudes, Guinea, harmful traditional practices, women's rights, prevention messages, health law enforcement
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Guinea, Circumcision, Female, 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