medigraphic.com
ISSN 0035-0052 (Print)

2014, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Pediatr 2014; 81 (4)

Opinions about circumcision in the newborn

Pérez-Liñán JA, Villegas-Álvarez F, Juárez-Jiménez LR, Celis-Jasso JS

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 131-133
PDF size: 99.53 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: Know the opinion of health professionals in Mexico, about the recommendation of neonatal circumcision. Which included attending to Congress.
Materials and methods: The survey explored four aspects: 1) frequency of neonatal circumcision recommendation, 2) knowledge about conceptual definitions, 3) physiological development of foreskin and 4) risk-benefit of the neonatal circumcision.
Results: 42% of respondents recommended neonatal circumcision. The percentage of questions answered correctly: 26% conceptual definitions, 6.8% physiological development of the foreskin and 3.3% neonatal circumcision indications/risks.
Conclusion: The percentage of respondents who recommends neonatal circumcision differs from that proposed by the Mexican Practice Guidance Clinic, «circumcision». The population described, could base its recommendation for neonatal circumcision in social and cultural issues.


REFERENCES

  1. National Hospital Discharge Survey Data Warehouse. National Center for Health Statistics. Hyattsville, MD 20782. United States Circumcision Incidence. Circumcision Incidence 2007-2009. http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/

  2. Van Howe RS. A cost-utility analysis of neonatal circumcision. Med Decis Making. 2004; 24: 584-601.

  3. American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Circumcision Policy Statement. Pediatrics. 2012; 130(3): 585-587.

  4. Circuncisión. México: Secretaría de Salud; 2010.

  5. Castro JG, Jones DL, López M, Barradas I, Weiss SM. Making the case for circumcision as a public health strategy: opening the dialogue. AIDS Patient Care and STDS. 2010; 24(6): 367-372.

  6. Dickerman JD. Circumcision in the Time of HIV: When Is There Enough Evidence to Revise the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Policy on Circumcision? Pediatrics. 2007;119:1006-1007.

  7. Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal circumcision revisited. CMAJ. 1996; 154: 769-780.

  8. British Medical Association. The law & ethics of male circumcision-guidance for doctor. London: British Medical Association, 2006.

  9. Royal Australasian Collage of physicians. Circumcision of male infans. Sydney: Royal Australian Collage of Physicians. 2010.

  10. World Health Organization and UNAIDS. New data on male circumcision and HIV prevention: policy and programme implications. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2007.

  11. Benatar D. Evaluation of circumcision should be circumscribed by the evidence. J Med Ethics. 2013; 39: 431-432.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com