Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 370

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why Don't Healthcare Professionals Talk About Sex? A Systematic Review of Recent Qualitative Studies Conducted in the United Kingdom

Open access
Dyer, Kerry, das Nair, Roshan·2013·The Journal of Sexual Medicine

Abstract

Introduction: Sexuality is considered to be an important aspect of holistic care, yet research has demonstrated that it is not routinely addressed in healthcare services. A greater understanding of this can be achieved through synthesizing qualitative studies investigating healthcare professionals' experiences of talking about sex. In doing so, policy makers and healthcare providers may be able to better address the sexual issues of service users. Aim: To gain an in-depth understanding of healthcare professionals' subjective experience of discussing sexuality with service users by identifying the factors that impede and facilitate such discussions. Main Outcome Measures: Review of healthcare professionals' experience of discussing sexuality with service users. Methods: Electronic databases and reference lists of published articles were searched in July 2011. Primary research studies were included in the review if they explored health professionals' experiences of discussing sexuality with adult service users, used qualitative methods, and were conducted in the United Kingdom over the last 10 years. Each study was reviewed and assessed. A secondary thematic analysis method was used where key themes were extracted and grouped and key concepts were explored. Results: Nineteen interconnected themes emerged relating to healthcare professionals' experience of discussing sexuality with service users, including fear about “opening up a can of worms,” lack of time, resources, and training, concern about knowledge and abilities, worry about causing offense, personal discomfort, and a lack of awareness about sexual issues. Some themes were particularly marked relating to the sexuality of the opposite-gender, black and ethnic minority groups, older and nonheterosexual service users, and those with intellectual disabilities. Conclusions: The majority of healthcare professionals do not proactively discuss sexuality issues with service users, and this warrants further attention. An understanding of the perceived barriers and facilitators indicates that interventions to improve the extent to which sexuality issues are addressed need to take organizational, structural, and personal factors into consideration.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02856.x

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 32 references

Cited by

See all 370

Metadata

Authors
Dyer, K., & das Nair, R.
Venue
The Journal of Sexual Medicine
Published
2013-11-01
Volume
10
Issue
11
Pages
2658-2670
ISSN
  • 1743-6095 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-6109
OpenAlex
W1594482375
Cited by
370
References
32
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Why Don't Healthcare Professionals Talk About Sex? A Systematic Review of Recent Qualitative Studies Conducted in the United Kingdom. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02856.x
The paper
Dyer, K., & das Nair, R. (2013). Why Don't Healthcare Professionals Talk About Sex? A Systematic Review of Recent Qualitative Studies Conducted in the United Kingdom. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02856.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.