Background:

Female genital mutilation is an important UK health-care challenge. There are no health benefits of female genital mutilation, and it is associated with lifelong physical, psychological and sexual impacts. The annual cost to the NHS to care for survivors is £100M. Deinfibulation may improve the health and well-being of some women, but there is no consensus on the optimal timing of surgery for type 3 survivors. UK care provision is reportedly suboptimal.

Objectives:

We aimed to explore the views of survivors, men and health-care professionals on the timing of deinfibulation surgery and NHS service provision.

Methods:

This was a qualitative study informed by the Sound of Silence framework. This framework is useful for researching sensitive issues and the health-care needs of marginalised populations. A total of 101 interviews with 44 survivors, 13 men and 44 health-care professionals were conducted, supplemented by two workshops with affected communities (participants, n = 10) and one workshop with stakeholders (participants, n = 30). Data were analysed using a hybrid framework method.

Results:

There was no clear consensus between groups on the optimal timing of deinfibulation. However, within groups, survivors expressed a preference for deinfibulation pre pregnancy; health-care professionals preferred antenatal deinfibulation, with the caveat that it should be the survivor’s choice. There was no consensus among men. There was agreement that deinfibulation should take place in a hospital setting and be undertaken by a suitable health-care professional. Decision-making around deinfibulation was complex. Deficiencies in professionals’ awareness, knowledge and understanding resulted in impacts on the provision of appropriate care. Although there were examples of good practice and positive care interactions, in general, service provision was opaque and remains suboptimal, with deficiencies most notable in mental health. Deinfibulation reportedly helps to mitigate some of the impacts of female genital mutilation. Interactions between survivors and health-care professionals were disproportionately framed around the law. The way in which services are planned and provided often silences the perspectives and preferences of survivors and their families.

Limitations:

Only a minority of the interviews were conducted in a language other than English, and the recruitment of survivors was predominantly through maternity settings, which meant that some voices may not have been heard. The sample of men was relatively small, limiting interpretation.

Conclusions:

In general, service provision remains suboptimal and can silence the perspectives and preferences of survivors. Deinfibulation services need to be widely advertised and information should highlight that the procedure will be carried out in hospital by suitable health-care professionals and that a range of time points will be offered to facilitate choice. Future services should be developed with survivors to ensure that they are clinically and culturally appropriate. Guidelines should be updated to better reflect the needs of survivors and to ensure consistency in service provision.

Future work:

Research is needed to (1) map female genital mutilation service provision; (2) develop and test effective education to address deficits in awareness and knowledge for affected communities and health-care professionals; and (3) develop, monitor and evaluate clinically and culturally competent female genital mutilation services.

Trial registration:

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14710507.

Funding:

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Article history

The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 16/78/04. The contractual start date was in May 2018. The draft report began editorial review in November 2020 and was accepted for publication in May 2021. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.