Kontakt 2017, 19(4):e229-e236 | DOI: 10.1016/j.kontakt.2017.09.008

The issue of genital mutilation in the care of immigrants from the perspective of midwivesNursing - Original article

Lucie Brázdová, Drahomíra Filausová*, Romana Belešová
Jihočeská univerzita v Českých Budějovicích, Zdravotně sociální fakulta, Ústav ošetřovatelství, porodní asistence a neodkladné péče, České Budějovice, Česká republika

At present, the number of migrants is globally increasing. Although the foreigners in the Czech Republic are pleading asylum less than in other countries of the EU (foreigners in the Czech Republic make up less than 5% of the whole population), there were 2,015,467,562 legally registered foreigners at the end of the last year, which was 15,639 more than in 2014. Migration is also associated with the presented issue of female genital mutilation. This article informs of female genital mutilation (FGM). The research was carried out in 2016.
The goal was to find the specifics of the care of women with genital mutilation during pregnancy, delivery and puerperium, from the perspective of midwives.
The research used a qualitative method of in-depth interviews with midwives who had experience with nursing women with genital mutilation during pregnancy, delivery and puerperium. The data were analyzed using the method of open coding and then categorized.
We found that the interviewed midwives had a negative approach to the practices of genital mutilation. The results showed that midwives met obstacles in nursing women with FGM. The complications during pregnancy, delivery and puerperium, which appear in women after the genital mutilation procedure, depend on the extent of the procedure and the later individual periods.
Growing migration suggests the number of women with genital mutilation is increasing. For this reason, it is important that midwives are informed of this issue and that they have knowledge in nursing women with FGM during pregnancy, delivery and puerperium.

Keywords: Genital mutilation; Infibulation; Delivery; Midwife; Puerperium; Pregnancy

Received: August 17, 2017; Revised: September 12, 2017; Accepted: September 26, 2017; Published: November 21, 2017  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Brázdová L, Filausová D, Belešová R. The issue of genital mutilation in the care of immigrants from the perspective of midwives. Kontakt. 2017;19(4):e229-236. doi: 10.1016/j.kontakt.2017.09.008.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Female genital mutilation. WHO; 2014. [online] [cit. 2014-02-12]. Dostupné z: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
    2. Radková L, Boča R, Šoltés L. Etické a zdravotné aspekty ženskej obriezky. Kontakt 2005;7(1-2):161. Go to original source...
    3. Global strategy to stop health-care providers from performing female genital mutilation, p. 1. Ženeva: WHO Press; 2010.
    4. Abusharaf R. Female circumcision: multicultural perspectives. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 2006. Go to original source...
    5. Roztočil A. Moderní gynekologie. Praha: Grada; 2011.
    6. Hrdličková L. Sexualita a náboženství: provokující spojení. Psychologie dnes 2010;1(5):24-5.
    7. Vachala B. Obřízka ve starém Egyptě. Vesmír 2007;86(10):660-4.
    8. Weiss P. Sexuologie. Praha: Grada; 2010.
    9. Abdulcadir J, Margairaz C, Boulvain M, Irion O. Care of women with female genital mutilation/cutting. Swiss Med Wkly 2011;140:w13137. Doi: 10.4414/smw.2010.13137. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    10. Vloeberghs E, van der Kwaak A, Knipscheer J, van der Muijsenbergh M. Coping and chronic psychosocial consequences of female genital mutilation in The Netherlands. Ethn Health 2012;17(6):677-95. Doi: 10.1080/13557858.2013.771148. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    11. Female genital mutilation frequently asked questions. UNFPA; 2015. [online] [cit. 2015-12-16]. Dostupné z: http://www.unfpa.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-frequently-asked-questions#banned_by_law
    12. Nour NM. Female genital cutting: impact on women's health. Semin Reprod Med 2015;33(1):41-6. Doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1395278. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    13. 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):430-7. Go to original source...
    14. Kontoyannis M, Katsetos Ch. Female genital mutilation. Health Science Journal 2010;4(1):34.
    15. An update on WHO's work on female genital mutilatin (FGM). WHO; 2011. [online] [cit. 2011-12-05]. Dostupné z http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publiactions/fhm//rhr_11_18/en/
    16. Rushwan H. Female genital mutilation (FGM) management during pregnancy, childbirth and the postpartum period. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2000;70(1):99-104. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    17. Vachková E. Specifika multikulturní péče na porodním sále. Ošetřovatelství 2008;10(1-2):33-7.
    18. Ivanová K, Špirudová L, Kutnohorská J. Multikulturní ošetřovatelství 1. Praha: Grada; 2005.
    19. Management of pregnancy, childbirth and the pospartum period in the presence of female gental mutilation. WHO; 2001. [online] [cit. 2001-12-03]. Dostupné z: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/66805/1/WHO_FCH_GWH_01.2.pdf
    20. Bártlová S, Sadílek P, Tóthová V. Výzkum a ošetřovatelství. Brno: NCO NZO; 2008.
    21. Banks E. Female genital mutilation and obstetric outcome: WHO collaborative prospective study in six African countries. Lancet 2006;367:1835-41. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    22. De Silva S. Obstetric sequelae of female circumcision. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1989;32(3):233-40. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    23. Andro A, Cambois E, Lesclingand M. Long-term consequences of female genital mutilation in a European context: Self perceived health of FGM women compared to non-FGM women. Social Science and Medicine 2014;106:177-84. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    24. Elnashar A, Abdelhady R. The impact of female genital cutting on health of newly married women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007;97(3):238-44. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    25. Thierfelder C, Tanner M, Kessler Bodiang CM. Female genital mutilation in the context of migration: experience of African women with the Swiss health care system. Eur J Public Health 2005;15(1):86-90. Doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cki120. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    26. Varol N, Dawson A, Turkmani S, Hall JJ, Nanayakkara S, Jenkins G et al. Obstetric outcomes for women with female genital mutilation at an Australia hospital, 2006-2012: a descriptive study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2016;16(1):328. Doi:10.1186/s12884-016-1123-5. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    27. Refaei M, Aghababaei S, Pourreza A, Masoumi SZ. Socioeconomic and reproductive health outcomes of female genital mutilation. Arch Iran Med 2016;19(11):805-11.
    28. Rodriguez MI, Seuc A, Say L, Hindin MJ. Episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among women living with type 3 female genital mutilation: a secondary analysis. Reproductive Health 2016;13:131. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    29. Škodová Z. Communication and interpersonal skills enhancement in midwifery: Review. Cent Eur J Nurs Midw 2016;7(3):504-10. Doi:10.15452/CEJNM.2016.07.0021. Go to original source...

    Return to the content