Knowledge, attitudes and practices of primary healthcare professionals to female genital mutilation in Valencia, Spain: are we ready for this challenge?

Table 2 Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample and knowledge, attitudes and practices related to FGM

	N	%
Survey respondents	321	100
Profession
GPs	123	38.3
Gynaecologist	1	0.3
Paediatricians	25	7.8
Nurses	146	45.5
Midwives	11	3.4
Social workers	13	4.1
Other	2	0.6
Gender
Male	77	24
Female	230	71.7
Other	2	0.6
No answer	12	3.7
Age (years)
≤ 35	43	13.4
36–50	69	21. 5
> 50	181	56.4
No answer	28	8.7
Training received	48	15
Proper training^a	3	6.25
Correct identification
Types of FGM	73	22.7
Countries of prevalence	16	5
Legislation	93	29
Reasons for conducting FGM
Tradition and customs	120	37.4
Religious reasons	24	7.5
Tradition and religious reasons	130	40.5
Tradition and marriage opportunities	15	4.6
Other^b	32	10
Detection of cases of FGM	15	4.7
Correctly identify cases at risk of FGM	109	34
Attitudes^c
Educate and sensitize	285	88.8
Condemn and report	131	40.8
Educate and report	113	35.2
Control	114	35.5

^aOf those who responded having received any training, the ones who correctly identified types of FGM and countries of prevalence
^bOther combinations, don’t know and don’t answer
^c“Educate and sensitize”: educate primary health professionals in FGM prevention and/or sensitize parents FGM consequences. “Condemn and report”: punitive and exemplary sentences to parents who perform FGM to their children and/or report to the authorities upon suspicion of FGM. “Educate and report”: both previous options combined. “Control”: prevent girls to travel to their country of origin as to not to take any risk and/or perform routine check-ups of the female genitalia as a measure of control up to the age of eighteen

ISSN: 1472-6963