References

Abdulcadir J, Margairaz C, Boulvain M, Iriona O. Care of Women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting. Swiss Medical Weekly. 2011; https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2011.13137

Abdulcadir J, Catania L, Hindin MJ, Say L, Petignat P, Abdulcadir O. Female Genital Mutilation: A Visual Reference and Learning Tool for Health Care Professionals. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016; 128:(5)958-63 https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001686

Abdulcadir J, Marras S, Catania L, Abdulcadir O, Petignat P. Defibulation: A Visual Reference and Learning Tool. Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2018; 15:(4)601-11 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.01.010

Albert J, Bailey E, Duaso M. Does the Timing of Deinfibulation for Women with Type 3 Female Genital Mutilation Affect Labour Outcomes?. British Journal of Midwifery. 2015; 23:(6)430-37 https://doi.org/10.12968/bjom.2015.23.6.430

Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors. Committee on Bioethics Pediatrics. 2010; 125 https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-0187

Bello S, Ogugbue M, Chibuzor M, Okomo U, Meremikwu M. Counselling for Deinfibulation among Women with Type III Female Genital Mutilation: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2017; 136:47-50 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12044

Dixon S, Agha K, Ali F Female genital mutilation in the UK-where are we, where do we go next? Involving communities in setting the research agenda. Res Involv Engagem. 2018; 4:(29) https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-018-0103–5

Elneil S. Female Sexual Dysfunction in Female Genital Mutilation. Tropical Doctor. 2016; 46:(1) https://doi.org/10.1177/0049475515621644

England and Wales Court of Appeal. In the court of appeal (civil division) on appeal from the family division of the high court Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the family division. 2020. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/731.html (accessed 22 September 2020)

Esu E, Udo A, Okusanya BO, Agamse D, Meremikwu MM. Antepartum or intrapartum deinfibulation for childbirth in women with type III female genital mutilation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2017; 136:21-29 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12055

Evans C, Tweheyo R, McGarry J Improving Care for Women and Girls Who Have Undergone Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Qualitative Systematic Reviews. Health Services and Delivery Research. 2019; 7:(31)1-216 https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07310

Evans C, Tweheyo R, McGarry J Seeking Culturally Safe Care: A Qualitative Systematic Review of the Healthcare Experiences of Women and Girls Who Have Undergone Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting. BMJ Open. 2019; 9:(5) https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027452

Gordon H, Comerasamy H, Morris NH. Female Genital Mutilation: Experience in a West London Clinic. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007; 27:(4)416-19 https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610701327511

Gov.uk. Mandatory Reporting of Female Genital Mutilation: Procedural Information. 2015a. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/573782/FGM_Mandatory_Reporting_-_procedural_information_nov16_FINAL.pdf (accessed 24 February 2020)

Gov.uk. Serious Crime Act, 2015. 2015b. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/serious-crime-bill (accessed 24 February 2020)

Estimating the Costs of Female Genital Mutilation Services to the NHS. 2016. https://www.york.ac.uk/media/healthsciences/images/research/prepare/reportsandtheircoverimages/EstimatingCostsOfFGMServices.pdf (accessed 24 February, 2020)

Jones L, Danks E, Clarke J Exploring the views of female genital mutilation survivors, their male partners and healthcare professionals on the timing of deinfibulation surgery and NHS FGM care provision (the FGM Sister Study): protocol for a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2019; 9 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034140

Mathers N, Rymer J. Mandatory Reporting of Female Genital Mutilation by Healthcare Professionals. Br J Gen Pract. 2015; 65:(635)282-283 https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp15X685141

Momoh C, Ladhani S, Lochrie DP, Rymer J. Female genital mutilation: analysis of the first twelve months of a southeast London specialist clinic. BJOG. 2001; 108:186-191 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2001.00036.x

The National Archives. Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. 2003. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/31/contents (accessed 1 June 2020)

NHS. National FGM Support Clinics. 2019. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/female-genital-mutilation-fgm/national-fgm-support-clinics/ (accessed 7 May, 2020)

NHS Digital. Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) - April 2018 to March 2019, Annual Report, Experimental Statistics Report. 2019. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/female-genital-mutilation/april-2018---march-2019 (accessed 24 February 2020)

Anatomy of the Clitoris. 2005. http://www.jurology.com/

Okusanya BO, Oduwole O, Nwachuku N, Meremikwu MM. Deinfibulation for Preventing or Treating Complications in Women Living with Type III Female Genital Mutilation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2017; 136:13-20 https://doi.org/https://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/ijgo.12056

Smith H, Stein K. Surgical or Medical Interventions for Female Genital Mutilation. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2017; 136:43-46 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12053

Prioritizing and Synthesizing Evidence to Improve the Health Care of Girls and Women Living with Female Genital Mutilation: An Overview of the Process. 2017. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/ijgo.12050

United Nations Population Fund. 2019. Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Frequently Asked Questions. 2019. https://www.unfpa.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-frequently-asked-questions#common_types (accessed 2 May 2020)

World Health Organization. WHO Guidelines on the Management of Health Complications from Female Genital Mutilation. 2016. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/206437/9789241549646_eng.pdf (accessed 21 September 2020)

World Health Organization. Female Genital Mutilation. 2020a. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation (accessed 24 February 2020)

World Health Organization. Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2020b. https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/prevalence/en (accessed 6 May 2020)

The Acton Model: support for women with female genital mutilation

02 October 2020
24 min read
Figure 1. The Acton Model places the woman at the centre of care. The all-female multidisciplinary team provide a holistic, sensitive, confidential service that is run by women for women
Volume 28 · Issue 10

Abstract

Objectives

To identify the presenting characteristics, needs and clinical management of non-pregnant women with female genital mutilation who attended the Sunflower clinic, a midwife-led specialist service.

Methods

This was a retrospective case series review examining referral patterns, clinical findings and subsequent management between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2019.The review was conducted at a multi-disciplinary female genital mutilation clinic for non-pregnant women aged 18 years and over in West London.

Results

There were 182 attendances at the clinic (88 new patients; 94 follow-up appointments). Almost half (52%) had type 3 mutilation, 32% had type 2; 9% had a history of type 3; 5% had type 1; one had type 4 and one declined assessment. A total of 35 women (40%) disclosed at least one psychological symptom (such as depression, anxiety, flashbacks, nightmares) during initial consultation.

Conclusions

Non-pregnant women attending female genital mutilation services present with a wide range of psychological and physical problems. Holistic woman-centred models of care appear to facilitate access to deinfibulation and counselling, which in turn may reduce long-term costs to the NHS. Safeguarding is an intrinsic part of midwives' work and is sometimes complex. The authors recommend a revision of the World Health Organization classifications to specify partial or total removal of the clitoral glans (rather than the clitoris as a whole) as this is inaccurate and may have a negative psychological impact for women.

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a global healthcare problem affecting an estimated 200 million women and girls, worldwide (World Health Organization [WHO], 2016). It is defined as ‘all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons’ (WHO, 2016). The WHO classifies FGM into four types, which cause varying levels of trauma to female genitalia. These have been further subdivided to ‘capture the varieties of FGM in more detail’ (WHO, 2020a; Table 1). Type 3 FGM or ‘phaoronic circumcision’, in particular, involves sealing the vulva and often requires a minor surgical procedure (deinfibulation) to facilitate menstruation, urination, penetrative sexual intercourse and childbirth.

The WHO recently estimated that ‘treatment of health complications of FGM in 27 high prevalence countries costs 1.4 billion USD per year’ (WHO, 2020a). A report commissioned by the Department of Health estimated the ‘annual cost of care for women with FGM in England and Wales at £100 million’ (Hex et al, 2016), suggesting that deinfibulation and psychological interventions may reduce long term costs to the NHS by treating complications in pregnancy (such as increased risk of tears, postpartum haemorrhage, longer maternal stay and higher caesarean section rates); uro-gynaecological problems (including recurrent urinary tract infections, thrush infections, dysuria, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia and infertility); and by mediating the psychological impact (post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression) (WHO, 2016).

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting British Journal of Midwifery and reading some of our peer-reviewed resources for midwives. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Limited access to our clinical or professional articles

  • Unlimited access to the latest news, blogs and video content

  • Monthly email newsletter