Knowledge, training and clinical practice related to female genital mutilation/cutting among healthcare professionals in Austria: a cross-sectional online survey
Anna Christina Maukner, Sandra Haider, Umyma El Jelede, Hilde Wolf, Suad Sheikh Mohamed, Susanne Gahbauer, Elena Jirovsky-PlatterObjectives
To assess self-reported knowledge, training and clinical practices related to female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) among healthcare professionals in Austria and to identify profession-specific gaps relevant to prevention and care.
Design
Cross-sectional online survey.
Setting
Nationwide survey conducted in Austria between September 2023 and February 2024.
Participants
A convenience sample of 537 healthcare professionals, including midwives (29%, n=157), gynaecologists (21%, n=113), general practitioners (18%, n=95), paediatricians (13%, n=72), and other (19%, n=100). Participants were recruited via professional associations.
Main outcome measures
Self-reported knowledge of FGM/C (including WHO typology, Austrian legislation and International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes), exposure to FGM/C training during professional education, clinical experience with patients from FGM/C-practising countries and comfort discussing FGM/C in clinical practice. Associations between professional group and outcome measures were analysed using logistic regression.
Results
Knowledge gaps were particularly pronounced as 63% of respondents were unfamiliar with legislation and 85% lacked knowledge of relevant ICD-10 codes. Compared with general practitioners, gynaecologists reported higher knowledge of legislation (adjusted OR (aOR)=4.75; 95% CI 2.47 to 9.14), traditional and cultural aspects (aOR=2.65; 95% CI 1.39 to 5.05) and ICD-10 codes (aOR=4.52; 95% CI 1.87 to 10.97). Only 34% (n=182) reported receiving any FGM/C training during professional education. Demand for additional training was high, particularly regarding legal frameworks (88%, n=474) and WHO typology (74%, n=397). Paediatricians were significantly less likely to feel comfortable initiating discussions about FGM/C (aOR=0.17; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.36) compared with general practitioners, whereas gynaecologists reported the highest comfort levels (aOR=1.44; 95% CI 0.64 to 3.28).
Conclusions
Substantial, profession-specific gaps in knowledge and training on FGM/C exist among healthcare professionals in Austria. Despite increasing availability of specialised services, insufficient integration of FGM/C into professional education may hinder effective prevention, identification and care. Targeted and systematic training, particularly for paediatricians and general practitioners, alongside national clinical guidelines may strengthen healthcare responses to FGM/C in Austria.