Public Health Research Priorities to Address Female Genital Mutilation or Cutting in the United States.

Female genital mutilation or cutting (FGM/C), an age-old tradition that is still widely practiced around the world, is gaining recognition as an important public health issue in the United States. Increasingly, because of migration, women and girls affected by FGM/C have become members of host communities where the practice is not culturally acceptable.According to recent conservative estimates, more than 513 000 immigrant women and girls living in the United States have undergone or are at risk for FGM/C, a significant increase from the 1990 estimate of 168 000. The arrests of physicians in Michigan in 2017 for performing FGM/C on minors underscores the fact that cutting is happening in the United States.We have identified numerous gaps in our understanding of the magnitude of the problem in the United States and in the availability of scientific data informing a variety of interventions (preventive, clinical, educational, legal). We catalog these major gaps and propose a research agenda that can help public health experts, researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders to establish priorities as we confront FGM/C as an important health issue affecting hundreds of thousands of women and girls in the United States. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print September 19, 2019: e1-e5. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2019.305259).

[1]  C. Cappa,et al.  The practice of female genital mutilation across the world: Data availability and approaches to measurement , 2019, Global public health.

[2]  O. Uthman,et al.  Secular trends in the prevalence of female genital mutilation/cutting among girls: a systematic analysis , 2018, BMJ Global Health.

[3]  G. Dildy,et al.  A survey of honor‐related practices among US obstetricians and gynecologists , 2017, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[4]  C. Pallitto,et al.  What do we know about assessing healthcare students and professionals’ knowledge, attitude and practice regarding female genital mutilation? A systematic review , 2017, Reproductive Health.

[5]  N. Warren,et al.  Interventions to Address Sexual Function in Women Affected by Female Genital Cutting: a Scoping Review , 2017, Current Sexual Health Reports.

[6]  L. Say,et al.  Female Genital Mutilation: A Visual Reference and Learning Tool for Health Care Professionals. , 2016, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[7]  R. Darby Moral Hypocrisy or Intellectual Inconsistency?: A Historical Perspective on Our Habit of Placing Male and Female Genital Cutting in Separate Ethical Boxes , 2016, Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal.

[8]  I. Danel,et al.  Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in the United States: Updated Estimates of Women and Girls at Risk, 2012 , 2016, Public health reports.

[9]  A. J. Jacobs,et al.  Female genital alteration: a compromise solution , 2016, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[10]  J. Siles-González,et al.  A mixed-method synthesis of knowledge, experiences and attitudes of health professionals to Female Genital Mutilation. , 2016, Journal of advanced nursing.

[11]  M. Yaron,et al.  Missed opportunities for diagnosis of female genital mutilation , 2014, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[12]  A. Fretheim,et al.  Psychological, social and sexual consequences of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C): a systematic review of quantitative studies , 2010 .

[13]  G. Serour The issue of reinfibulation , 2010, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.