You have accessJournal of UrologyGlobal Health/Humanitarian (MP67)1 Sep 2021MP67-23 EVALUATING THE AWARENESS, CLINICAL EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION/CUTTING AMONG FEMALE PELVIC MEDICINE AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY SPECIALISTS IN THE UNITED STATES Hannah S. Thomas, Nnenaya A. Mmonu, Gregory Amend, Crista Johnson-Agbakwu, Tami Rowen, Jennifer T. Anger, and Benjamin N. Breyer Hannah S. ThomasHannah S. Thomas More articles by this author , Nnenaya A. MmonuNnenaya A. Mmonu More articles by this author , Gregory AmendGregory Amend More articles by this author , Crista Johnson-AgbakwuCrista Johnson-Agbakwu More articles by this author , Tami RowenTami Rowen More articles by this author , Jennifer T. AngerJennifer T. Anger More articles by this author , and Benjamin N. BreyerBenjamin N. Breyer More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002028.23AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) is a cultural practice whereby there is partial or total removal of external female genitalia for non-therapeutic reasons. Despite the high prevalence of urologic complications, there is a paucity of literature discussing FGM/C in the context of clinical Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) practice. This study aimed to evaluate the awareness, clinical experience, and knowledge of FGM/C among US FPMRS specialists with the ultimate goal of strengthening the recognition and care of patients with FGM/C. METHODS: We distributed a 27-item survey via email to members of the Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery. We collected variables pertaining to previous education of FGM/C, confidence in a clinical environment, cultural and medical knowledge, and future education. RESULTS: A total of 54 US-based FPMRS specialists completed the survey. All providers had heard of FGM/C before; however only 13% received formal education during medical training. Over half of respondents had encountered a patient with FGM/C in clinical practice; however, only 19% and 13% felt completely confident recognising and discussing FGM/C, respectively (Table 1). 70% believed religious doctrine informed the practice of FGM/C and 24% correctly identified the type of FGM/C on clinical representation. Only 17% of respondents were aware of FGM/C guidelines and providers expressed a desire for future, multimodal educational resources on the topic. Finally, 80% of FPMRS specialists correctly identified that FGM/C is illegal in the US. CONCLUSIONS: Education regarding FGM/C remains sparse and variable for US FPMRS specialists, and cultural and clinical knowledge is lacking. With increasing globalization, there is an imperative for both urologists and gynecologists to be aware of FGM/C. Future work seeks to focus on formal provider education and investigation of the perspectives of patients with FGM/C, in order to translate findings into meaningful education and patient-centered care. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e518-e519 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Hannah S. Thomas More articles by this author Nnenaya A. Mmonu More articles by this author Gregory Amend More articles by this author Crista Johnson-Agbakwu More articles by this author Tami Rowen More articles by this author Jennifer T. Anger More articles by this author Benjamin N. Breyer More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...