Female genital mutilation and cutting: a systematic literature review of health professionals’ knowledge, attitudes and clinical practice

Table 2 Assessment of methodological quality of studies included in the review

Reference	Representativeness						Survey validity		Score out of 8
	Profession of respondents described	Age or years of practice	Gender	Setting	Sampling procedure	Response rate reported	Pre-test	Expert review
Publications from African Countries
Ashimi et al. 2014 [21]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	7
Kaplan et al. 2013 [22]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	7
Ali et al. 2012 [23]	Yes	Yes	No^a	Yes	No	No	No	No	3
Dike et al. 2012 [24]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	7
Rasheed et al. 2011 [25]	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	3
Refaat 2009 [26]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	5
Mostafa et al. 2006 [27]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	6
Onuh et al. 2006 [28]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	7
Publications from “Western Countries”
Caroppo et al. 2014 [29]	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	5
Purchase et al. 2013 [30]	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	5
Relph et al. 2013 [31]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	7
Moeed et al. 2012 [20]	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	3
Hess et al. 2010 [32]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	7
Kaplan-Marcusan et al. 2009 [33]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	6
Leye 2008 [34]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	8
Zaidi et al. 2007 [35]	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	5
Tamaddon et al. 2006 [36]	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	5
Jager et al. 2002 [37]	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	4

“Yes” indicates that this criterion was adequately reported in the paper
^aThe sample consisted of “midwives” and it is assumed that all would have been female given the cultural setting for this study

ISSN: 1472-698X