19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Crossing cultural divides: A qualitative systematic review of factors influencing the provision of healthcare related to female genital mutilation from the perspective of health professionals

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          As a result of global migration, health professionals in destination countries are increasingly being called upon to provide care for women and girls who have experienced female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). There is considerable evidence to suggest that their care experiences are sub-optimal. This systematic review sought to illuminate possible reasons for this by exploring the views, experiences, barriers and facilitators to providing FGM-related healthcare in high income countries, from health professionals’ perspectives.

          Methods

          Sixteen electronic databases/resources were searched from inception to December 2017, supplemented by reference list searching and suggestions from experts. Inclusion criteria were: qualitative studies (including grey literature) of any design, any cadre of health worker, from OECD countries, of any date and any language. Two reviewers undertook screening, selection, quality appraisal and data extraction using tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Synthesis involved an inductive thematic approach to identify descriptive themes and interpret these into higher order analytical constructs. Confidence in the review findings was assessed using GRADE-CERQual. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420150300042015).

          Results

          Thirty papers (representing 28 distinct studies) from nine different countries were included. The majority of studies focused on maternity contexts. No studies specifically examined health professionals’ role in FGM/C prevention/safeguarding. There were 20 descriptive themes summarised into six analytical themes that highlighted factors perceived to influence care: knowledge and training, communication, cultural (mis)understandings, identification of FGM/C, clinical management practices and service configuration. Together, these inter-linked themes illuminate the ways in which confidence, communication and competence at provider level and the existence and enactment of pathways, protocols and specialist support at service/system level facilitate or hinder care.

          Conclusions

          FGM/C is a complex and culturally shaped phenomenon. In order to work effectively across cultural divides, there is a need for provider training, clear guidelines, care pathways and specialist FGM/C centres to support mainstream services.

          Related collections

          Most cited references92

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Super-diversity and its implications

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series

            The GRADE-CERQual (‘Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research’) approach provides guidance for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research (or qualitative evidence syntheses). The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. Confidence in the evidence from qualitative evidence syntheses is an assessment of the extent to which a review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. CERQual provides a systematic and transparent framework for assessing confidence in individual review findings, based on consideration of four components: (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data, and (4) relevance. A fifth component, dissemination (or publication) bias, may also be important and is being explored. As with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach for effectiveness evidence, CERQual suggests summarising evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative Summary of Qualitative Findings tables. These tables are designed to communicate the review findings and the CERQual assessment of confidence in each finding. This article is the first of a seven-part series providing guidance on how to apply the CERQual approach. In this paper, we describe the rationale and conceptual basis for CERQual, the aims of the approach, how the approach was developed, and its main components. We also outline the purpose and structure of this series and discuss the growing role for qualitative evidence in decision-making. Papers 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in this series discuss each CERQual component, including the rationale for including the component in the approach, how the component is conceptualised, and how it should be assessed. Paper 2 discusses how to make an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding and how to create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. The series is intended primarily for those undertaking qualitative evidence syntheses or using their findings in decision-making processes but is also relevant to guideline development agencies, primary qualitative researchers, and implementation scientists and practitioners. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Barriers and Strategies in Guideline Implementation—A Scoping Review

              Research indicates that clinical guidelines are often not applied. The success of their implementation depends on the consideration of a variety of barriers and the use of adequate strategies to overcome them. Therefore, this scoping review aims to describe and categorize the most important barriers to guideline implementation. Furthermore, it provides an overview of different kinds of suitable strategies that are tailored to overcome these barriers. The search algorithm led to the identification of 1659 articles in PubMed. Overall, 69 articles were included in the data synthesis. The content of these articles was analysed by using a qualitative synthesis approach, to extract the most important information on barriers and strategies. The barriers to guideline implementation can be differentiated into personal factors, guideline-related factors, and external factors. The scoping review revealed the following aspects as central elements of successful strategies for guideline implementation: dissemination, education and training, social interaction, decision support systems and standing orders. Available evidence indicates that a structured implementation can improve adherence to guidelines. Therefore, the barriers to guideline implementation and adherence need to be analysed in advance so that strategies that are tailored to the specific setting and target groups can be developed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                4 March 2019
                2019
                : 14
                : 3
                : e0211829
                Affiliations
                [1 ] School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
                [2 ] Libraries Research and Learning Resources, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
                [3 ] Department of Maternity and Obstetrics, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
                [4 ] Mojatu Foundation, Nottingham, United Kingdom
                Oakland University, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5338-2191
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7629-2447
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4686-7649
                Article
                PONE-D-18-36627
                10.1371/journal.pone.0211829
                6398829
                30830904
                248f88c8-41d0-4d68-8a66-c901ce428d76
                © 2019 Evans et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 22 December 2018
                : 22 January 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 3, Pages: 32
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002001, Health Services and Delivery Research Programme;
                Award ID: 15/137/04
                Award Recipient :
                This project was funded by the NIHR HS&DR Programme (no. 15/137/04). The following authors were part of the team that received funding: CE, JMcG, JE, VN and GH. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. NIHR website: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/funding-and-support/funding-for-research-studies/funding-programmes/health-services-and-delivery-research/.
                Categories
                Research Article
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Medical Personnel
                Midwives
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Medical Personnel
                Nurses
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Providers
                Nurses
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Culture
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Sexual and Gender Issues
                Female Genital Mutilation
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Verbal Behavior
                Verbal Communication
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Verbal Behavior
                Verbal Communication
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Database and Informatics Methods
                Database Searching
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Ethnicities
                African People
                Somalian People
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Education
                Schools
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article