↓ Skip to main content

Addressing female genital mutilation in Europe: a scoping review of approaches to participation, prevention, protection, and provision of services

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Addressing female genital mutilation in Europe: a scoping review of approaches to participation, prevention, protection, and provision of services
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-017-0713-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Baillot, Nina Murray, Elaine Connelly, Natasha Howard

Abstract

Public and policy attention to female genital mutilation (FGM) in diaspora communities has increased in Europe, but research remains limited and misinformation abounds. As a first step to addressing these issues, this study explored FGM prevention and response interventions in Europe, using a scoping literature review and key informant interviews. A scoping study design was selected, using Arksey and O'Malley's six-stage scoping framework to review identified sources. Key informant interviews were used to inform and add depth to literature findings. Findings were summarised thematically, guided by the Scottish Government's '4Ps' framework for tackling violence against women (i.e. participation, prevention, protection, providing services). Seventy literature sources, of 1095 screened, plus 16 individual and 3 group interview sources were included. Several countries have developed promising interventions supporting FGM resistance and recovery. However, gaps remain including community participation, professional knowledge and linkages, and evaluation of approaches. This scoping review is an initial attempt to describe available primary evidence on European initiatives responding to FGM. Further research is required to determine whether interventions are effective, while policy and practice development must be shaped and driven by the experiences, needs, and views of affected communities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 139 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 21%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 44 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 30 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 13%
Social Sciences 15 11%
Psychology 6 4%
Unspecified 5 4%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 50 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 18 September 2020.
All research outputs
#2,494,907
of 24,323,543 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#427
of 2,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,471
of 447,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#13
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,323,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,080 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
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 447,300 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.