| Title |
Interventions for improving outcomes for pregnant women who have experienced genital cutting
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009872.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Olukunmi O Balogun, Fumi Hirayama, Windy MV Wariki, Ai Koyanagi, Rintaro Mori |
| Abstract |
Female genital cutting (FGC) refers to all procedures that involve the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for cultural or other non-therapeutic reasons. There are no known medical benefits to FGC, and it can be potentially dangerous for the health and psychological well-being of women and girls who are subjected to the practice resulting in short- and long-term complications. Health problems of significance associated with FGC faced by most women are maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity, the need for assisted delivery and psychological distress. Under good clinical guidelines for caring for women who have undergone genital cutting, interventions could provide holistic care that is culturally sensitive and non-judgemental to improve outcomes and overall quality of life of women. This review focuses on key interventions carried out to improve outcome and overall quality of life in pregnant women who have undergone FGC. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 20% |
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Ireland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 243 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 240 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 35 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 13% |
| Researcher | 23 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 5% |
| Other | 52 | 21% |
| Unknown | 67 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 69 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 37 | 15% |
| Psychology | 25 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 19 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 6% |
| Unknown | 72 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 09 February 2017.
All research outputs
#5,439,690
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,752
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,248
of 205,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#120
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 205,561 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 211 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.