FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
Ayer — Mayo 14th 2024Tus fuentes RSS

Six aspects of female genital mutilation education (SAFE) model: findings from a qualitative study

Por: Waigwa · S. · Bradbury-Jones · C. · Doos · L. · Taylor · J.
Objectives

Recent figures show that over 200 million women and girls, globally, live with the consequences of female genital mutilation (FGM). Complex debilitating physical, psychological and social problems result from the practice. Health education interventions have proven to be essential in both preventing the practice and informing support of survivors. In this study, we aimed to explore factors that affect the effectiveness of health education interventions.

Design

A generic qualitative approach was applied using semistructured individual and focus group interviews with women and men from communities with a history of FGM in Birmingham, UK. Framework analysis was used to group recurring themes from the data. Intersectionality was used as a theoretical lens to synthesise findings.

Participants

Twenty-one individuals (18 women and 3 men) participated in semistructured individual and focus group interviews about their views and experiences of health and well-being intervention programmes related to FGM.

Results

Six themes emerged from the data and were developed into a model of issues relating to FGM education. These six themes are (1) active communication, (2) attitudes and beliefs, (3) knowledge about FGM, (4) social structures, (5) programme approach and (6) the better future. A combined discussion of all these issues was compressed into three groupings: social structures, culture and media.

Conclusion

The results of this study depict aspects associated with FGM education that should be considered by future interventions aiming to prevent the practice and inform support services for survivors in a holistic way.

AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Social prescribing for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their carers: what works, for whom, under what circumstances and why - protocol for a complex intervention systematic review

Por: Marshall · J. · Papavasiliou · E. · Fox · C. · Hawkes · M. · Irvine · A. · Moniz-Cook · E. · Pick · A. · Polley · M. J. · Reeve · J. · Robinson · L. · Rook · G. · Sadler · E. · Wolverson · E. · Walker · S. · Cross · J. L. · the SPLENDID Collaboration · Fox · Cross · Allan · Avery · Bradbu
Introduction

Dementia is a complex medical condition that poses significant challenges to healthcare systems and support services. People living with dementia (PLWD) and their carers experience complex needs often exacerbated by social isolation and challenges in accessing support. Social prescribing (SP) seeks to enable PLWD and their carers to access community and voluntary sector resources to support them address such needs. Existing research, however, does not describe what SP interventions are currently in place in dementia care. Little is known about the needs these interventions are designed to address, the reasons that lead PLWD and their carers to participate in them, their effectiveness and the extent to which they could increase positive health outcomes if adopted and how.

Methods and analysis

A complex intervention systematic review of SP for PLWD and/or their carers will be conducted using an iterative logic model approach. Six electronic (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and Cochrane/CENTRAL) and two grey literature databases (EThOS and CORE) were searched for publications between 1 January 2003 and June 2023, supplemented by handsearching of reference lists of included studies. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment, using Gough’s Weight of Evidence Framework, will be independently performed by two reviewers. A narrative approach will be employed to synthesise and report quantitative and qualitative data. Reporting will be informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Complex Interventions extension statement and checklist.

Ethics and dissemination

No ethical approval is required due to this systematic review operating only with secondary sources. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and meetings with key stakeholders including healthcare professionals, patient and carer groups, community organisations (eg, the Social Prescribing Network and the Evidence Collaborative at the National Academy for Social Prescribing), policymakers and funding bodies.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42023428625.

❌