Top

BMC Public Health

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Care | Research article

Assessing the reliability and validity of attitudes and confidence scales for the care of women and girls affected by female genital mutilation/cutting

Authors: Christina X. Marea, Nicole Warren, Nancy Glass, Crista Johnson-Agbakwu, Nancy Perrin

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

Approximately 545,000 women and girls in the USA have undergone Female Genital Mutilation/ Cutting (FGM/C) or have mothers from a country where FGM/C is practiced. Women and girls living with FGM/C in the USA may experience stigma and bias due to their FGM/C, immigration, racial, and language status. Health care provider attitudes toward FGM/C and confidence for related clinical care may affect the quality of care, yet there are no validated instruments to measure these constructs.

Methods

We developed the instruments via review of the FGM/C literature, the development of scale items, expert review, and pre-testing. We validated the instruments using a convenience sample of providers in Arizona and Maryland. We used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to confirm factor structures, and compared scores between known groups to assess validity.

Results

The EFA revealed a two-factor solution for attitudes, including subscales for Negative Attitudes and Empathetic Attitudes toward FGM/C and those who practice with Cronbach’s alphas of 0.814 and 0.628 respectively. The EFA for confidence revealed a two-factor solution including Confidence in Clinical FGM/C Care and Confidence in Critical Communication Skills for FGM/C Care with Cronbach’s alphas of 0.857 and 0.694 respectively.

Conclusions

Health care provider attitudes and confidence toward FGM/C care may affect quality of care and health outcomes for women and girls. Our study describes the rigorous psychometric analysis to create reliable and valid instruments to assess health care provider attitudes and confidence for the care of women and girls who have experienced FGM/C.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03249649. Registered on 15 August 2017. Retrospectively registered.

Available only for authorised users

World Health Organization. WHO Guidelines on the management of health complications from female genital mutilation, vol. 64; 2016.

United Nations Children’s Fund. Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: a Global Concern Unicef’S Data Work on Fgm/C Support for Data Collection Data Analysis and Dissemination. New York: Unicef; 2016. Available from: https://www.unicef.org/media/files/FGMC_2016_brochure_final_UNICEF_SPREAD.pdf.

Koski A, Heymann J. Changes in support for the continuation of female genital mutilation/cutting and religious views on the practice in 19 countries. Glob Public Health. 2019;14(5):696–708. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2018.1542016.CrossRefPubMed

Farage MA, Miller KW, Tzeghai GE, Azuka CE, Sobel JD, Ledger WJ. Female genital cutting: confronting cultural challenges and health complications across the lifespan. Womens Heal. 2015;11(1):79–94.

Berg RC, Denison E. A tradition in transition: factors perpetuating and hindering the continuance of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) summarized in a systematic review. Health Care Women Int. 2013;34(10):837–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2012.721417.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Berg RC, Underland V, Odgaard-Jensen J, Fretheim A, Vist GE. Effects of female genital cutting on physical health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2014;4(11):e006316 Available from: http://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006316.CrossRef

Care of women and girls living with female genital mutilation: a clinical handbook. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

Goldberg H, Stupp P, Okoroh E, Besera G, Goodman D, Danel I. Female Genital Mutilation / Cutting in the United States: Updated Estimates of Women and Girls at Risk, 2012. Public Health Rep. 2016;131:340–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335491613100218.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Johnson-Agbakwu CE, Manin E. Sculptors of African Women’s bodies: forces reshaping the embodiment of female genital cutting in the west. Arch Sex Behav. 2020;(0123456789). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01710-1.

10.

Ogunsiji O. Female genital mutilation (FGM): Australian midwives’ knowledge and attitudes. Health Care Women Int. 2015;36(11):1179–93 Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07399332.2014.992521.CrossRef

11.

Dawson AJ, Turkmani S, Varol N, Nanayakkara S, Sullivan E. Homer CSE. Midwives’ experiences of caring for women with female genital mutilation: Insights and ways forward for practice in Australia. Women Birth. 2015;28(3):207–14 Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1871519215000098 [cited 2017 May 15].CrossRef

12.

Lazar JN, Johnson-Agbakwu CE, Davis OI, Shipp MP-L. Providers’ perceptions of challenges in obstetrical care for somali women. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2013;2013:149640 Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3816065&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.CrossRef

13.

Widmark C, Levál A, Tishelman C, Ahlberg BM. Obstetric care at the intersection of science and culture: Swedish doctors’ perspectives on obstetric care of women who have undergone female genital cutting. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;30(6):553–8. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/01443615.2010.484110 [cited 2017 May 15]

14.

Fawcett L, Maupin JN, Brewis SA, Johnson-Agbakwu CE. (n.d.). Somali Refugee Women and Their U.S. Healthcare Providers: Knowledge, Perceptions and Experiences of Childbearing. In Somali Refugee Women and Their U.S. Healthcare Providers: Knowledge, Perceptions and Experiences of Childbearing. Arizona State University. http://hdl.handle.net/2286/R.I.25160

15.

Upvall MJ, Mohammed K, Dodge PD. Perspectives of Somali bantu refugee women living with circumcision in the United States: a focus group approach. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(3):360–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.04.009.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Hamid A, Grace KT, Warren N. A Meta-Synthesis of the Birth Experiences of African Immigrant Women Affected by Female Genital Cutting. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2018:1–11 Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/jmwh.12708.

17.

Brown E, Carroll J, Fogarty C, Holt C. “They get a C-section. They Gonna die”: Somali Women’s fears of obstetrical interventions in the United States. J Transcult Nurs. 2010;21(3):220–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659609358780.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Pavlish CL. Somali immigrant women and the American health care system. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(2):353–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.04.010.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Turkmani S, Homer CSE, Dawson A. Maternity care experiences and health needs of migrant women from female genital mutilation–practicing countries in high-income contexts: a systematic review and meta-synthesis. Birth. 2019;46(1):3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12367.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Mehta PK, Saia K, Mody D, Crosby SS, Raj A, Maru S, et al. Learning from UJAMBO: perspectives on gynecologic Care in African Immigrant and Refugee Women in Boston, Massachusetts. J Immigr Minor Health. 2017;20(2):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-017-0659-4.CrossRef

21.

Zenner N, Liao LM, Richens Y, Creighton SM. Quality of obstetric and midwifery care for pregnant women who have undergone female genital mutilation. J Obstet Gynaecol (Lahore). 2013;33(5):459–62. https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2013.767785.CrossRef

22.

Tunçalp, Were WM, Maclennan C, Oladapo OT, Gülmezoglu AM, Bahl R, et al. Quality of care for pregnant women and newborns - the WHO vision. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;122(8):1045–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13451.CrossRef

23.

Straus L, McEwen A, Hussein FM. Somali women’s experience of childbirth in the UK: perspectives from Somali health workers. Midwifery. 2009;25(2):181–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2007.02.002.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Dawson A, Turkmani S, Fray S, Nanayakkara S, Varol N, Homer C. Evidence to inform education, training and supportive work environments for midwives involved in the care of women with female genital mutilation: a review of global experience. Midwifery. 2015;31(1):229–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2014.08.012.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Odunukan OW, Abdulai RM, Hagi Salaad MF, Lahr BD, Flynn PM, Wieland ML. Provider and interpreter preferences among Somali women in a primary care setting. J Prim Care Community Health. 2015;6(2):105–10 Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2150131914552846.CrossRef

26.

Lundberg PC, Gerezgiher A. Experiences from pregnancy and childbirth related to female genital mutilation among Eritrean immigrant women in Sweden. Midwifery. 2008;24(2):214–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2006.10.003.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Murray L, Windsor C, Parker E, Tewfik O. The experiences of African women giving birth in Brisbane, Australia. Health Care Women Int. 2010;31(5):458–72 Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07399330903548928.CrossRef

28.

Vangen S, Johansen REB, Sundby J, Træen B, Stray-Pedersen B. Qualitative study of perinatal care experiences among Somali women and local health care professionals in Norway. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;112(1):29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-2115(03)00313-0.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Brown E, Carroll J, Fogarty C, Holt C. “They Get a C-Section . . . They Gonna Die”: Somali Women’s Fears of Obstetrical Interventions in the United States. J Transcult Nurs. 2010;21(3):220–7 Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1043659609358780.CrossRef

30.

Banke-Thomas A, Agbemenu K, Johnson-Agbakwu C. Factors associated with access to maternal and reproductive health care among Somali refugee women resettled in Ohio, United States: a cross-sectional survey. J Immigr Minor Health. 2019;21(5):946–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-018-0824-4.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Hess RF, Weinland J, Saalinger NM. Knowledge of female genital cutting and experience with women who are circumcised: a survey of nurse-midwives in the United States. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010;55(1):46–54 Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1526952309000439 [cited 2017 May 15].CrossRef

32.

Lane JL, Johnson-Agbakwu CE, Warren N, Budhathoki C, Cole EC. Female Genital Cutting: Clinical knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices from a Provider survey in the US. J Immigr Minor Health. 2018;0(0):0. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-018-0833-3.CrossRef

33.

Eagly AH, Chaiken S. The advantages of an inclusive definition of attitude. Soc Cogn. 2007;25(5):582–602. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.582.CrossRef

34.

Kaiser FG, Wilson M. The Campbell paradigm as a behavior-predictive reinterpretation of the classical tripartite model of attitudes. Eur Psychol. 2019;24(4):359–74. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000364.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Kaplan A, Torán-Monserrat P, Moreno-Navarro J, Castany Fàbregas MJ, Muñoz-Ortiz L. Perception of primary health professionals about female genital mutilation: from healthcare to intercultural competence. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:11 Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2631456&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.CrossRef

36.

Jacoby SD, Smith A. Increasing certified nurse-midwives’ confidence in managing the obstetric care of women with female genital mutilation/cutting. J Midwifery Womens Heal. 2013;58(4):451–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-2011.2012.00262.x.CrossRef

37.

Leye E, Ysebaert I, Deblonde J, Claeys P, Vermeulen G, Jacquemyn Y, et al. Female genital mutilation: knowledge, attitudes and practices of Flemish gynaecologists. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2008;13(2):182–90 Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13625180701780957 [cited 15 May 2017].CrossRef

38.

Sureshkumar P, Zurynski Y, Moloney S, Raman S, Varol N, Elliott EJ. Female genital mutilation: Survey of paediatricians’ knowledge, attitudes and practice. Child Abuse Negl. 2016;55:1–9 Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0145213416300382 [cited 15 May 2017].CrossRef

39.

Young J, Knuti K, Basel R, Agbakwu CJ. Female Genital Mutilation / Cutting — Pediatric Physician Knowledge, Training, and General Practice Approach American Academy of Pediatrics. J Immigr Minor Health. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-019-00938-x.

40.

Relph S, Inamdar R, Singh H, Yoong W. Female genital mutilation/cutting: knowledge, attitude and training of health professionals in inner city London. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;168(2):195–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.01.004.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Cappon S, L’Ecluse C, Clays E, Tency I, Leye E. Female genital mutilation: knowledge, attitude and practices of Flemish midwives. Midwifery. 2015;31(3):e29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2014.11.012.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Cappon S, L’Ecluse C, Clays E, Tency I, Leye E. Female genital mutilation: Knowledge, attitude and practices of Flemish midwives. Midwifery. 2015;31(3):e29–35 Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0266613814002940 [cited 15 May 2017].CrossRef

43.

Sureshkumar P, Zurynski Y, Moloney S, Raman S, Varol N, Elliott EJ. Female genital mutilation: Survey of paediatricians’ knowledge, attitudes and practice. Child Abuse Negl. 2016;55:1–9 Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213416300382 [cited 15 May 2017].CrossRef

44.

Kaplan A, Hechavarría S, Bernal M, Bonhoure I. Knowledge, attitudes and practices of female genital mutilation/cutting among health care professionals in The Gambia: a multiethnic study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):851 Available from: http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-13-851 [cited 15 May 2017].CrossRef

45.

Fitzgerald C, Hurst S. Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18(19):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0179-8.

46.

Hall WJ, Chapman MV, Lee KM, Merino YM, Thomas TW, Payne BK, et al. Implicit racial/ethnic bias among health care professionals and its influence on health care outcomes: a systematic review. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(12):e60–76. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302903.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Lee RT, Perez AD, Malik Boykin C, Mendoza-Denton R. On the prevalence of racial discrimination in the United States. PLoS One. 2019;14(1):1–16.

48.

Shen MJ, Peterson EB, Costas-Muñiz R, Hernandez MH, Jewell ST, Matsoukas K, et al. The effects of race and racial concordance on patient-physician communication: a systematic review of the literature. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2018;5(1):117–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-017-0350-4.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Martin AK, Tavaglione N, Hurst S. Resolving the conflict: clarifying “vulnerability” in health care ethics. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2014;24(1):51–72. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2014.0005.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Pajares F. Current directions in self-efficacy research. In: Maerh M, Pintrich PR, editors. Advances in motivation and achievement. 10th ed. Greenwich: JAI Press; 1997. p. 1–49. Available from: https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/effchapter.html.

51.

Williams D, Rhodes RE. The confounded self-Efficancy construct: review, conceptual analysis, and recommendations for future research. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10(2):113–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2014.941998.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Tengland PA. Behavior change or empowerment: on the ethics of health-promotion goals. Health Care Anal. 2016;24(1):24–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-013-0265-0.CrossRefPubMed

53.

DeVellis RF. Scale development - theory and applications. 4th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc.; 2017.

54.

Stop TB Partnership Secretariat. A guide to developing knowledge , attitude and practice surveys. Geneva: World Health Organisation. 2008. Available from: papers2://publication/uuid/F52C6E32-6B86-4DCC-A96C-4ED36F8491A8

55.

Migration Policy Institute. (n.d.). Map: Population Distribution for Countries and Regions of Birth, 2015-2019 (pooled): US Immigrant Population by State and County. Migration Policy Institute Data Hub. Retrieved June 4, 2020, from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/us-immigrant-population-state-and-county.

56.

Fox KA, Johnson-Agbakwu C. Crime victimization, health, and female genital mutilation or cutting among Somali women and adolescent girls in the United States, 2017. Am J Public Health. 2020;110(1):112–8 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31725330.CrossRef

57.

United Nations Children’s Fund. Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: a statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change. InReproductive Health Matters 2013;21(42). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-8080(13)42747-7.

58.

Holopainen G, Nyström L, Kasén A. The caring encounter in nursing. Nurs Ethics. 2019;26(1):7–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733016687161.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Gerdes KE, Segal E. Importance of empathy for social work practice: integrating new science. Soc Work. 2011;56(2):141–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/56.2.141.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Elliott R, Bohart AC, Watson JC, Murphy D. Therapist empathy and client outcome: an updated meta-analysis. Psychotherapy. 2018;55(4):399–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000175.CrossRefPubMed

61.

Zhao C, Dowzicky P, Colbert L, Roberts S, Kelz RR. Race, gender, and language concordance in the care of surgical patients: a systematic review. Surg (United States). 2019;166(5):785–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2019.06.012.CrossRef

62.

Howard MC. Introduction to Cronbach’s Alpha. Available from: https://mattchoward.com/introduction-to-cronbachs-alpha/ [cited 27 Jul 2020].

63.

Hair JF, Black B, Babin BJ, Anderson R, Tatham RL. Multivariate data analysis: United States edition (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson. 2005.

64.

Streiner DL. Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess. 2003;80(1):99–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Taber KS. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res Sci Educ. 2018;48(6):1273–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.CrossRef

66.

Leye E, Van Eekert N, Shamu S, Esho T, Barrett H. Debating medicalization of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C): learning from (policy) experiences across countries. Reprod Health. 2019;16(1):1–10.CrossRef

67.

Jacobs AJ, Arora KS. Punishment of minor female genital ritual procedures: is the perfect the enemy of the good? Dev World Bioeth. 2017;17(2):134–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12135.CrossRefPubMed

68.

Doucet M-H, Pallitto C, Groleau D. Understanding the motivations of health-care providers in performing female genital mutilation: an integrative review of the literature. Reprod Health. 2017;14(1):46 Available from: http://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12978-017-0306-5.CrossRef

69.

The Brussels Collaborative on Bodily Integrity. Medically Unnecessary Genital Cutting and the Rights of the Child: Moving Toward Consensus. Am J Bioeth. 2019;19(10):17–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1643945.CrossRef

70.

Earp BD. Between Moral Relativism and Moral Hypocrisy: Reframing the Debate on “FGM”. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2016;26(2):105–44. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2016.0009.CrossRefPubMed

71.

Brady SS, Connor JJ, Chaisson N, Sharif Mohamed F, Robinson BB. Female Genital Cutting and Deinfibulation: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior to Research and Practice. Arch Sex Behav. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1427-4.

72.

Atkinson HG, Ottenheimer D, Mishori R. Public Health Research priorities to address female genital mutilation or cutting in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(11):1523–7. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305259.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

73.

Flores G. The impact of medical interpreter services on the quality of health care: A systematic review. Med Care Res Rev. 2005;62:255–99 Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15894705/ [cited 14 Jun 2021].CrossRef

74.

Karnieli-Miller O. Reflective practice in the teaching of communication skills. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(10):2166–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.06.021.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Assessing the reliability and validity of attitudes and confidence scales for the care of women and girls affected by female genital mutilation/cutting
Authors: Christina X. Marea
Nicole Warren
Nancy Glass
Crista Johnson-Agbakwu
Nancy Perrin
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: Care
Published in: BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11455-8

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Assessing the reliability and validity of attitudes and confidence scales for the care of women and girls affected by female genital mutilation/cutting

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Does social support matter? The mediating links with coping strategy and anxiety among Chinese college students in a cross-sectional study of COVID-19 pandemic

Self-reported suboptimal sleep and receipt of sleep assessment and treatment among persons with and without a mental health condition in Australia: a cross sectional study

A cross-sectional study of community perceptions of stigmatization amongst women affected by UN-peacekeeper perpetrated sexual exploitation and abuse

Hepatitis and tuberculosis testing are much less common than HIV testing among adults in Kisumu, Kenya: results from a cross-sectional assessment

Time-varying effect of drunk driving regulations on road traffic mortality in Guangzhou, China: an interrupted time-series analysis

Questionnaire choice affects the prevalence of recommended physical activity: an online survey comparing four measuring instruments within the same sample