| Title |
The contribution of online content to the promotion and normalisation of female genital cosmetic surgery: a systematic review of the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Women's Health, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12905-015-0271-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hayley Mowat, Karalyn McDonald, Amy Shields Dobson, Jane Fisher, Maggie Kirkman |
| Abstract |
Women considering female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS) are likely to use the internet as a key source of information during the decision-making process. The aim of this systematic review was to determine what is known about the role of the internet in the promotion and normalisation of female genital cosmetic surgery and to identify areas for future research. Eight social science, medical, and communication databases and Google Scholar were searched for peer-reviewed papers published in English. Results from all papers were analysed to identify recurring and unique themes. Five papers met inclusion criteria. Three of the papers reported investigations of website content of FGCS providers, a fourth compared motivations for labiaplasty publicised on provider websites with those disclosed by women in online communities, and the fifth analysed visual depictions of female genitalia in online pornography. Analysis yielded five significant and interrelated patterns of representation, each functioning to promote and normalise the practice of FGCS: pathologisation of genital diversity; female genital appearance as important to wellbeing; characteristics of women's genitals are important for sex life; female body as degenerative and improvable through surgery; and FGCS as safe, easy, and effective. A significant gap was identified in the literature: the ways in which user-generated content might function to perpetuate, challenge, or subvert the normative discourses prevalent in online pornography and surgical websites. Further research is needed to contribute to knowledge of the role played by the internet in the promotion and normalisation of female genital cosmetic surgery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 134 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 18% |
| Unspecified | 22 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 21 | 16% |
| Unknown | 28 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 23% |
| Unspecified | 22 | 16% |
| Psychology | 16 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Unknown | 31 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 November 2015.
All research outputs
#18,431,664
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from BMC Women's Health
#1,496
of 1,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,925
of 386,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Women's Health
#25
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,818 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 386,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.