TY - JOUR
T1 - Missed opportunities for diagnosis of female genital mutilation
AU - Abdulcadir, Jasmine
AU - Dugerdil, Adeline
AU - Boulvain, Michel
AU - Yaron, Michal
AU - Margairaz, Christiane
AU - Irion, Olivier
AU - Petignat, Patrick
PY - 2014/6
Y1 - 2014/6
N2 - Objective To investigate missed opportunities for diagnosing female genital mutilation (FGM) at an obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) department in Switzerland. Methods In a retrospective study, we included 129 consecutive women with FGM who attended the FGM outpatient clinic at the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics at the University Hospitals of Geneva between 2010 and 2012. The medical files of all women who had undergone at least 1 previous gynecologic exam performed by an OB/GYN doctor or a midwife at the study institution were reviewed. The type of FGM reported in the files was considered correct if it corresponded to that reported by the specialized gynecologist at the FGM clinic, according to WHO classification. Results In 48 (37.2%) cases, FGM was not mentioned in the medical file. In 34 (26.4%) women, the diagnosis was correct. FGM was identified but erroneously classified in 28 (21.7%) cases. There were no factors (women's characteristics or FGM type) associated with missed diagnosis. Conclusion Opportunities to identify FGM are frequently missed. Measures should be taken to improve FGM diagnosis and care.
AB - Objective To investigate missed opportunities for diagnosing female genital mutilation (FGM) at an obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) department in Switzerland. Methods In a retrospective study, we included 129 consecutive women with FGM who attended the FGM outpatient clinic at the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics at the University Hospitals of Geneva between 2010 and 2012. The medical files of all women who had undergone at least 1 previous gynecologic exam performed by an OB/GYN doctor or a midwife at the study institution were reviewed. The type of FGM reported in the files was considered correct if it corresponded to that reported by the specialized gynecologist at the FGM clinic, according to WHO classification. Results In 48 (37.2%) cases, FGM was not mentioned in the medical file. In 34 (26.4%) women, the diagnosis was correct. FGM was identified but erroneously classified in 28 (21.7%) cases. There were no factors (women's characteristics or FGM type) associated with missed diagnosis. Conclusion Opportunities to identify FGM are frequently missed. Measures should be taken to improve FGM diagnosis and care.
KW - Female genital cutting
KW - Female genital mutilation
KW - Female genital mutilation/cutting
KW - Missed diagnosis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84900338918&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.11.016
DO - 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.11.016
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 24713414
AN - SCOPUS:84900338918
SN - 0020-7292
VL - 125
SP - 256
EP - 260
JO - International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics
JF - International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics
IS - 3
ER -