• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

利用电子产妇记录估计 2010 年至 2013 年洛锡安区的女性外阴残割情况。

Using electronic maternity records to estimate female genital mutilation in Lothian from 2010 to 2013.

机构信息

Maternity Department, Victoria Hospital, NHS Fife, Kirkcaldy, UK.

NHS Borders, Borders General Hospital, Melrose, UK.

出版信息

Eur J Public Health. 2018 Aug 1;28(4):657-661. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cky045.

DOI:10.1093/eurpub/cky045
PMID:29596591
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is most commonly encountered in Africa and the Middle East, with migration from FGM-practicing countries meaning it is increasingly seen in Europe. Addressing FGM requires accurate information on who is affected but ascertainment is notoriously difficult. This study estimated FGM prevalence in women presenting for maternity care in the Lothian region of Scotland and compared this with that expected by extrapolation of survey data from women's country of birth.

METHODS

Electronic clinical records were linked to birth registration data to estimate FGM in the obstetric patients in Lothian from 2010 to 2013.

RESULTS

Among all, 107 women affected by FGM were detected, at a rate of 2.8/1000 pregnancies. Of 487 women from UNICEF-recognized FGM-practicing countries who accessed care, 87 (18%) had documented evidence of FGM (three quarters of whom came from Nigeria, Sudan or The Gambia). The prevalence was 54% of the level expected from the extrapolation method. Country of birth had a sensitivity of 81% for FGM.

CONCLUSION

Women from FGM-practicing countries commonly access maternity care in Lothian. This confirms the need for ongoing training and investment in identifying and managing FGM. Matching electronic clinical records with birth registration data was a useful methodology in estimating the level of FGM in the maternity population. In a European country like Scotland with modest migrant numbers, asking country of birth during pregnancy and making sensitive enquiries could detect 81% of women with FGM. Extrapolation from maternal country of birth surveys grossly overestimates the true prevalence.

摘要

背景

女性生殖器切割(FGM)在非洲和中东最为常见,由于来自实行女性生殖器切割国家的移民,这种情况在欧洲也越来越常见。解决女性生殖器切割问题需要准确了解受影响的人群,但这种确定方法非常困难。本研究估计了苏格兰洛锡安区产妇护理中女性生殖器切割的流行率,并将其与从女性出生地调查数据推断的预期流行率进行了比较。

方法

电子临床记录与出生登记数据相关联,以估计 2010 年至 2013 年洛锡安区产科患者中的女性生殖器切割情况。

结果

在所有患者中,共发现 107 名受女性生殖器切割影响的患者,患病率为每 1000 例妊娠 2.8 例。在接受护理的 487 名来自联合国儿童基金会认可的实行女性生殖器切割国家的妇女中,有 87 人(18%)有记录证明实施了女性生殖器切割(其中四分之三来自尼日利亚、苏丹或冈比亚)。实际流行率是从推断方法得出的预期水平的 54%。出生地的敏感性为 81%。

结论

来自实行女性生殖器切割国家的妇女通常在洛锡安区接受产妇护理。这证实了需要不断培训并投资于识别和管理女性生殖器切割。将电子临床记录与出生登记数据相匹配是一种估计产妇群体中女性生殖器切割水平的有用方法。在像苏格兰这样移民人数适中的欧洲国家,在怀孕期间询问出生地并进行敏感询问可以发现 81%的女性生殖器切割者。从产妇母国的调查推断出的流行率严重高估了真实情况。

相似文献

1
Using electronic maternity records to estimate female genital mutilation in Lothian from 2010 to 2013.利用电子产妇记录估计 2010 年至 2013 年洛锡安区的女性外阴残割情况。
Eur J Public Health. 2018 Aug 1;28(4):657-661. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cky045.
2
Estimates of first-generation women and girls with female genital mutilation in the European Union, Norway and Switzerland.欧盟、挪威和瑞士第一代遭受女性生殖器切割的妇女和女孩的估计数。
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016 Dec;21(6):474-482. doi: 10.1080/13625187.2016.1234597. Epub 2016 Sep 21.
3
Estimates of female genital mutilation/cutting in the Netherlands: a comparison between a nationwide survey in midwifery practices and extrapolation-model.荷兰女性生殖器切割估计:产科学实践全国调查与外推模型比较。
BMC Public Health. 2020 Jun 29;20(1):1033. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09151-0.
4
Estimating the magnitude of female genital mutilation/cutting in Norway: an extrapolation model.挪威女性生殖器切割行为规模的估算:一种外推模型。
BMC Public Health. 2016 Feb 2;16:110. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-2794-6.
5
Towards a better estimation of prevalence of female genital mutilation in the European Union: a situation analysis.迈向对欧盟女性生殖器切割流行率的更准确估计:情况分析
Reprod Health. 2020 Jul 8;17(1):105. doi: 10.1186/s12978-020-00947-2.
6
Estimating the number of foreign women with female genital mutilation/cutting in Italy.估算意大利接受女性生殖器切割的外国女性人数。
Eur J Public Health. 2016 Aug;26(4):656-61. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckw015. Epub 2016 Mar 22.
7
Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in the United States: Updated Estimates of Women and Girls at Risk, 2012.美国的女性生殖器切割:2012年面临风险的妇女和女童最新估计数
Public Health Rep. 2016 Mar-Apr;131(2):340-7. doi: 10.1177/003335491613100218.
8
Female genital mutilation: Obstetric outcomes in metropolitan Sydney.女性生殖器切割:悉尼大都市地区的产科结局
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Apr;59(2):312-316. doi: 10.1111/ajo.12954. Epub 2019 Feb 7.
9
Mapping the lack of public initiative against female genital mutilation in Denmark.丹麦缺乏公众倡议反对女性割礼现象分析。
Reprod Health. 2018 Apr 7;15(1):59. doi: 10.1186/s12978-018-0499-2.
10
Knowledge, attitudes and practices of primary healthcare professionals to female genital mutilation in Valencia, Spain: are we ready for this challenge?西班牙巴伦西亚初级医疗保健专业人员对女性生殖器切割的知识、态度和做法:我们准备好应对这一挑战了吗?
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Jul 24;18(1):579. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3396-z.

引用本文的文献

1
Implementing Artificial Intelligence and Digital Health in Resource-Limited Settings? Top 10 Lessons We Learned in Congenital Heart Defects and Cardiology.在资源有限的环境中实施人工智能和数字健康?我们在先天性心脏病和心脏病学中获得的十大经验教训。
OMICS. 2020 May;24(5):264-277. doi: 10.1089/omi.2019.0142. Epub 2019 Oct 8.
2
Female Genital Cutting and Deinfibulation: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior to Research and Practice.女性生殖器切割和去瓣术:将计划行为理论应用于研究和实践。
Arch Sex Behav. 2021 Jul;50(5):1913-1927. doi: 10.1007/s10508-019-1427-4. Epub 2019 Jul 29.
3
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.
跨越文化鸿沟:从卫生专业人员的角度出发,对影响提供与女性割礼相关的医疗保健服务的因素进行定性系统评价。
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 4;14(3):e0211829. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211829. eCollection 2019.