IntroductionFemale genital mutilation (FGM) is a significant global health concern and is likely to become an increasingly important healthcare challenge in destination countries such as the UK owing to rising levels of migration from FGM-affected countries. Currently, there is no consensus on the optimal timing of deinfibulation (opening) surgery for women who have experienced type 3 FGM and care provision remains suboptimal in the UK. This qualitative study aims to explore the views of survivors, male partners and healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the timing of deinfibulation and delivery of NHS FGM services.Methods and analysisA qualitative study, informed by the Sound of Silence conceptual framework, will be undertaken via two work packages (WPs). WP1 will explore views on timing preferences for deinfibulation and NHS FGM services through interviews and discussion groups with FGM survivors (n~50), male partners (n~10) and HCPs (n~50). WP2 will use established techniques via two workshops (community (n~20–25 participants) and national stakeholder (n~30–35 participants)) to synthesise qualitative research findings and inform best practice and policy recommendations around the timing of deinfibulation and NHS FGM care provision. Supported by trained interpreters, data collection will be audio recorded and transcribed. Data will be analysed using the framework method to facilitate a systematic mapping and exploration of qualitative data from multiple sources.Ethics and disseminationThe study has received ethical approval from the North West Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee (18/NW/0498). The outputs for this study will be recommendations for best practice and policy around FGM care provision that reflects the views and preferences of key stakeholders. The findings will be disseminated via conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications, patient groups, third sector organisations and social media.Trial registration numberISRCTN14710507.

Background Female genital mutilation is an important UK health-care challenge. There are no health benefits of female genital mutilation, and it is associated with lifelong physical, psychological and sexual impacts. The annual cost to the NHS to care for survivors is £100M. Deinfibulation may improve the health and well-being of some women, but there is no consensus on the optimal timing of surgery for type 3 survivors. UK care provision is reportedly suboptimal. Objectives We aimed to explore the views of survivors, men and health-care professionals on the timing of deinfibulation surgery and NHS service provision. Methods This was a qualitative study informed by the Sound of Silence framework. This framework is useful for researching sensitive issues and the health-care needs of marginalised populations. A total of 101 interviews with 44 survivors, 13 men and 44 health-care professionals were conducted, supplemented by two workshops with affected communities (participants, n = 10) and one workshop with stakeholders (participants, n = 30). Data were analysed using a hybrid framework method. Results There was no clear consensus between groups on the optimal timing of deinfibulation. However, within groups, survivors expressed a preference for deinfibulation pre pregnancy; health-care professionals preferred antenatal deinfibulation, with the caveat that it should be the survivor’s choice. There was no consensus among men. There was agreement that deinfibulation should take place in a hospital setting and be undertaken by a suitable health-care professional. Decision-making around deinfibulation was complex. Deficiencies in professionals’ awareness, knowledge and understanding resulted in impacts on the provision of appropriate care. Although there were examples of good practice and positive care interactions, in general, service provision was opaque and remains suboptimal, with deficiencies most notable in mental health. Deinfibulation reportedly helps to mitigate some of the impacts of female genital mutilation. Interactions between survivors and health-care professionals were disproportionately framed around the law. The way in which services are planned and provided often silences the perspectives and preferences of survivors and their families. Limitations Only a minority of the interviews were conducted in a language other than English, and the recruitment of survivors was predominantly through maternity settings, which meant that some voices may not have been heard. The sample of men was relatively small, limiting interpretation. Conclusions In general, service provision remains suboptimal and can silence the perspectives and preferences of survivors. Deinfibulation services need to be widely advertised and information should highlight that the procedure will be carried out in hospital by suitable health-care professionals and that a range of time points will be offered to facilitate choice. Future services should be developed with survivors to ensure that they are clinically and culturally appropriate. Guidelines should be updated to better reflect the needs of survivors and to ensure consistency in service provision. Future work Research is needed to (1) map female genital mutilation service provision; (2) develop and test effective education to address deficits in awareness and knowledge for affected communities and health-care professionals; and (3) develop, monitor and evaluate clinically and culturally competent female genital mutilation services. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14710507. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

To explore the views of female genital mutilation (FGM) survivors, men and healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the timing of deinfibulation surgery and NHS service provision. Design: Qualitative study informed by the sound of silence framework. Setting: Survivors and men were recruited from three FGM prevalent areas of England. HCPs and stakeholders were from across the UK. Sample: Forty-four survivors, 13 men and 44 HCPs. Ten participants at two community workshops and 30 stakeholders at a national workshop. Methods: Hybrid framework analysis of 101 interviews and three workshops. Results: There was no consensus across groups on the optimal timing of deinfibulation for survivors who wished to be deinfibulated. Within group, survivors expressed a preference for deinfibulation pre-pregnancy and HCPs antenatal deinfibulation. There was no consensus for men. Participants reported that deinfibulation should take place in a hospital setting and be undertaken by a suitable HCP. Decision making around deinfibulation was complex but for those who underwent surgery it helped to mitigate FGM impacts. Although there were examples of good practice, in general, FGM service provision was suboptimal. Conclusion: Deinfibulation services need to be widely advertised. Information should highlight that the procedure can be carried out at different time points, according to preference, and in a hospital by suitable HCPs. Future services should ideally be developed with survivors, to ensure that they are clinically and culturally appropriate. Guidelines would benefit from being updated to reflect the needs of survivors and to ensure consistency in provision. K E Y W O R D S deinfibulation, female circumcision, female genital cutting, female genital mutilation, qualitative research, sound of silence 1 | I N TRODUC TION Globally, at least 200 million women and girls have experienced female genital mutilation or cutting (hereafter 'FGM'). 1FGM is a global health concern and an important healthcare challenge in countries with large FGM-affected diasporas, such as the UK. 1,2 The UK NHS offers a range of support services for women and girls with FGM, costing ~£100 million

Objective: To explore the views of female genital mutilation (FGM) survivors, men, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the timing of deinfibulation surgery and NHS service provision. Design: Qualitative study informed by the sound of silence framework. Setting: Survivors and men were recruited from three FGM prevalent areas of England. HCPs and stakeholders were from across the UK. Sample: 44 survivors, 13 men and 44 HCPs. 10 participants at two community workshops and 30 stakeholders at a national workshop. Methods: Hybrid framework analysis of 101 interviews and three workshops. Results: There was no consensus across groups on the optimal timing of deinfibulation for survivors who wished to be deinfibulated. Within group, survivors expressed a preference for deinfibulation pre-pregnancy and HCPs antenatal deinfibulation. There was no consensus for men. Participants reported that deinfibulation should take place in a hospital setting and be undertaken by a suitable HCP. Decision making around deinfibulation was complex but for those who underwent surgery it helped to mitigate FGM impacts. Whilst there were examples of good practice, in general, FGM service provision was sub-optimal. Conclusion: Deinfibulation services need to be widely advertised. Information should highlight that the procedure can be carried out at different time points, according to preference, and in a hospital by suitable HCPs. Future services should ideally be developed with survivors, to ensure that they are clinically and culturally appropriate. Guidelines would benefit from being updated to reflect the needs of survivors and to ensure consistency in provision. Study registration number ISRCTN 14710507