Missed opportunities for diagnosis of female genital mutilation

Jasmine Abdulcadir*, Adeline Dugerdil, Michel Boulvain, Michal Yaron, Christiane Margairaz, Olivier Irion, Patrick Petignat

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)256-260
Number of pages5
JournalInternational Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Volume125
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2014
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Female genital cutting
  • Female genital mutilation
  • Female genital mutilation/cutting
  • Missed diagnosis

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Missed opportunities for diagnosis of female genital mutilation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this