4.2 Article

Opening a can of worms: GP and practice nurse barriers to talking about sexual health in primary care

期刊

FAMILY PRACTICE
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 528-536

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmh509

关键词

primary care; sexual health; sexuality; sexual problems; training

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. There is evidence that health professionals do not discuss sexually related issues in consultations as often as patients would like. Although primary care has been identified as the preferred place to seek treatment for sexual health concerns, little is known either of the factors that prevent GPs and practice nurses initiating such discussions or of how they feel communication in this area could be improved. Objective. The purpose of the present study was to identify barriers perceived by GPs and practice nurses to inhibit discussion of sexual health issues in primary care and explore strategies to improve communication in this area. Methods. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 GPs and 35 practice nurses recruited from diverse practices throughout Sheffield. Results. The term 'can of worms' summarized participants' beliefs that sexually related issues are highly problematic within primary care because of their sensitivity, complexity and constraints of time and expertise. Particular barriers were identified to discussing sexual health with patients of the opposite gender, patients from Black and ethnic minority groups, middle-aged and older patients, and non-heterosexual patients. Potential strategies to improve communication about sexual health within primary care included training, providing patient information and expanding the role of the practice nurse; however, several limitations to these approaches were identified. Conclusion. GPs and practice nurses do not address sexual health issues proactively with patients, and this area warrants further attention if policy recommendations to expand the role of primary care within sexual health management are to be met.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据