Skip to main content
Download PDF

Gaps in sexual health content of healthcare professional curriculum: a systematic review of educational interventions

BMC Medical Education volume 23, Article number: 926 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Sexual health care, including assessment and patient teaching, is part of comprehensive patient care. Health professional (medical and nursing) students’ education in sexual health lacks uniformity in content and assessment skills.

Objectives

The current systematic review aimed to assess sexual health educational curriculum for health professional students regarding the educational content, duration, and evaluation of these educational interventions.

Methods

This systematic review followed the preferred reporting guidelines for systematic reviews. A comprehensive search was conducted between May–August, 2023 across four databases (PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE), outlining 614 sources. Following the screening process, 36 educational intervention studies were deemed eligible for inclusion. The quality assessment of these studies was conducted using The Effective Public Health Project tool, which was found appropriate for evaluating this type of research.

Results

The studies had a global representation, with most studies conducted in the US. Limited nursing educational interventions were found. Three main categories emerged from the analysis of the educational interventions: one-time interventions, workshops, and semester courses. These categories differed in terms of their duration. Upon evaluating the educational intervention programs, it was found that the majority relied on participant self-reporting, while only a few included objective evaluations.

Conclusions

This review revealed inconsistencies in educational content for healthcare professional students and may impact their clinical skills, particularly in sexual health. The variation in content, duration, and evaluation methods created challenges in assessing the interventions. The lack of standardized sexual health education highlighted a significant gap, raising concerns about students’ ultimate proficiency in this area. Bridging this divide is essential by integrating comprehensive sexual health content and assessment skills into the health professional curriculum.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The World Association for Sexual Health (WAS) emphasized sexual health (SH) as a fundamental right of every patient [1]. Incorporating SH into a patient’s overall well-being has been identified as an essential approach to delivering comprehensive health care and promoting overall health [2]. Moreover, it was considered an integral professional responsibility within health professional’s practice [3] and basic/advanced education [4]. The sexual health assessment (SHA), positioned as a primary step of the health evaluation process, serves as an informed framework for addressing SH issues [5]. Recognizing the integrated relationships between SH and all dimensions of life, a SHA allowed identifying existing or potential problems related to sexual well-being and potentially influencing the patient’s and family’s quality of life [5]. The results of a SHA enabled health professional students to develop a personalized treatment approach that aligns with the patient’s needs and preferences. SHA demanded a constructive perspective, encompassing positive attitudes, knowledge, and a proactive approach to initiate a conversation about SH [1, 6, 7].

The literature suggested that many healthcare providers lack the education and professional skills to address SH issues effectively. Studies such as the 2009 survey of American medical students [7] and the 2020 Danish national survey of health professional students [8] highlighted the persistent need for professional sexual health education (SHE) focused on acquiring SHA skills in the curricula. Students recognized the importance of SHA for patient health and well-being but also expressed a lack of appropriate training in this area. In studies that overall included over 1000 health professionals from diverse disciplines (medical and nursing), students report concerns about their unpreparedness regarding SH skills. Furthermore, the absence of SHA education in healthcare curricula can impact the ability of students to address SH issues in their future professional practice [9,10,11,12,13].

An SHA described as a part of a comprehensive health history, requiring integration of questions about SH. In order to conduct a SHA, it was essential to have relevant knowledge and communication skills [5, 14]. The National Coalition for Sexual Health (2021) recommended considering the following six aspects, the 6 P’s, during the patient’s SHA: partners, practices, past history of STI(s), protection, pregnancy and fertility, and P plus, which include pleasure, problems/dysfunctions, and Pride-LGBTQ issues [15]. One of the popular models for discussing sexuality with patients is the PLISSIT model [16]. It provides a delineated approach, beginning with introducing the topic by obtaining the patient’s permission to discuss personal SH.

Professional experts for undergraduate medical education agreed that integrating the principles of SHA (knowledge, attitudes, and skills) should be a mandatory component of SHE for professional practice [17]. Principles of SHA and 6 Ps’ should be integrated into the curricula as part of the essential first–year skills for assessing the SH of the patient. The second-year curricula should focus on more advanced SHA skills, such as understanding the impact of various diseases on SH function [17]. Though specific recommendations for studying SHA are not offered, the importance of having an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) at the end of the first year and a theoretical summative exam at the end of the second year as a measure of the effectiveness of the curriculum was highly recommended [18]. While these recommendations were intended for medical students, it is essential to recognize their significance for all health profession students directly involved in patient care. It is important to note that in the context of nursing professional education, many SH topics are not included as compulsory content in the curriculum [10, 11]. This lacuna persisted despite detailed information on SHA steps in nursing textbooks [5].

The impact of SHE curricula on improving the healthcare providers’ ability to address patients’ SH has been described in the literature [19, 20]. A review of educational intervention studies published between 2002 and 2020 contains 11 studies that found evidence supporting the effectiveness of SHE in improving knowledge, attitudes, and skills despite variations in intervention duration and educational content [20]. However, only one study included senior nursing students, while the intervention curricula in the other studies targeted healthcare providers who had already graduated. Furthermore, the findings indicated significant variation in the duration and content of the interventions, with the majority not focusing on skill acquisition [20].

In contrast to previous results, another systematic review included 11 educational intervention studies in which the intervention focused on training SHA skills [19]. Only two studies used actual evaluation measures to examine training effectiveness on improvement in SHA actual performance (OSCE and simulations). However, the performance observed following the intervention was tested under laboratory conditions and not with actual patients. In addition, only one study measured the actual performance by asking the patient whether they were asked about SH. The rest of the studies examined the effectiveness of the intervention by participants self-reporting. It is important to note that SHA skills in these studies mainly focused on assessing risk for sexually transmitted diseases (HIV, AIDS, STI) and did not include comprehensive SHA and communication skills [19]. In addition, the quality assessment level of the studies included in the systematic review was suboptimal due to differences in research objectives, evaluation metrics, and the usage of varying questionnaires. Finally, similar to previous results, the interventions in this systematic review included only medical students or interns, with no mention of nursing students [19].

The present systematic review aimed to identify SH educational interventions and evaluations of these interventions designed for health professional students. The review intended to analyze these programs by examining their content, focusing on SH education, and investigating the taught frameworks or courses. It seemed to determine whether SHA was included and, if so, what assessment principles (knowledge, attitudes, and skills) were incorporated as educational objectives. The review also aimed to assess the duration of these educational interventions and evaluate the methods used for assessing SHA principles, presenting self-reported data vis a vis actual performance in clinical settings.

Method

Searching strategy

The current systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines for reporting systematic reviews [21]. The research team followed a predetermined protocol based on PICO strategy and inclusion–exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria encompassed intervention studies employing a pre-post intervention research design, focusing on SH education tailored for nursing and medical students. The inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed educational intervention design published in English between 2005–2023, with SHA educational content. The search was conducted across four databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, and Scopus) with the assistance of a librarian. The search was conducted between May and August 2023 and included 614 studies transferred to the continuous screening phase.

The following search terms were used: TI (“Medical Student*” OR “Nursing Student*” OR “Health Professional Student*” OR “Medical Studies” OR “Nursing Studies”) OR AB (“Medical Student*” OR “Nursing Student*” OR “Health Professional Student” *” or “Medical Education” or “Nursing Education”), TI (“Sexual Educator*” OR “Sexual Health”) or AB (“Sexual Education*” or “Sexual Health” or “Sexual health assessment” or “Sexual health history”), TI OR AB curriculum. MESH or TSEZARIUS were used in relevant databases.

Study selection and data extraction

During the study selection process, ZOTERO software was utilized for source management and duplicate identification. After removing duplicates, 297 studies were transferred to Rayyan software for sorting [22]. Initially, articles were screened based on their titles and abstracts, and only those aligning with the inclusion criteria (n = 79) were included in a second screening involving detailed reading. Eventually, after rigorous assessment, 36 articles meeting all criteria were included in the extraction stage (see Fig. 1). All phases of the screening process were independently conducted by two researchers (NB and AWW). The studies that presented conflicting decisions of the original two researchers were deliberated upon in a discussion involving the third researcher (SSK). Articles were included or rejected from the systematic literature review only after a consensus was reached through mutual agreement.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases and registers only. From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Full size image

Data were extracted from the included studies based on the following criteria: study information (including the authors, year, and country of publication), study design, and target population. Information about sexual health education duration, content, assessment principles, and evaluation was offered.

Quality assessment

The Effective Public Health Project (EPHPP) tool developed by Thomas et al. (2004) was utilized for quality assessment of studies included in the systematic review [23]. This tool has been extensively used in the literature and was considered valid for determining the quality of interventional research designs [24]. Each study was assessed based on the EPHPP tool’s seven components: selection bias, study design, confounders, blinding, data collection methods, intervention integrity, and analysis. In addition, the overall quality of each study was rated using a three-level scale (low, medium, and high quality) [23]. Two researchers (NB and AWW) initially performed an independent quality assessment. Subsequently, the findings were shared with the third researcher (SKK), who compared the results obtained by the two researchers. Finally, any discrepancies in the results were resolved through discussion and agreement.

Results

Study characteristics and target population

The present study involves a total of 36 research studies (N = 36) with a global representation- most of them (n = 19; 53%) were conducted in the US and involved medical students [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]. Of the studies reviewed, only 13 (36%) specifically targeted nursing. Among these, ten educational interventions involved nursing students [31, 37, 44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51], while the remaining studies were centered on professional nurses’ continuing education [36, 52].

Regarding study design, only 2 of the 36 (5%) studies utilized a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design [52, 53], with four additional studies (11%) employed quasi-experimental designs [44, 49, 51, 54]. Out of 30 remaining studies with pre- post test design, only seven (23.3%) conducted a follow-up (over different periods) after the intervention [25, 28, 35, 41, 44, 55, 56].

Most studies (n = 33; 92%) received a weak quality assessment (EPHPP = 3) due to selection bias, study design, and data collection procedures (see Table 1).

Table 1 Study characteristics
Full size table

Intervention types

An analysis of the educational interventions revealed three main categories, namely one-time interventions (n = 9), workshops (more than 1-time intervention) (n = 20), and semester courses (n = 6) (see Table 2). Regarding one-time activities, most interventions (n = 7) concentrated on enhancing the SH of the LGBTQ population [29, 30, 33, 35, 40, 43, 59]. In two other studies, the educational interventions content focused on addressing particular issues, such as sexual violence [58] and sexually transmitted diseases (STD) prevention [53], with a SHA, adapted to the specific curricula content. There was no report on which principles and models were utilized to conduct a SHA in these training programs [53, 58]. The last study [54] centered on imparting clinical skills for conducting genital exams on both men and women. Again, the study solely focuses on practicing the technical aspect of the skill without incorporating an evaluation of SH.

Table 2 Characteristics of the educational intervention curricula, presented by types: one–time intervention, workshop, semester course
Full size table

In the second category of educational interventions, 20 workshops were identified. Of these, only three studies utilized the PLISSIT model [16] or 6P’s component [15] for SHA. SHA in these studies also focused on specific educational topics [26, 55, 56]. For instance, SHA was taught according to the PLISSIT model [55, 56] yet specifically tailored for the rehabilitation department [56] or dermatological and rheumatological assessment [55]. In another study, SHA is based on the principles of the 6P’s, but there was no reference to the PLISSIT model [26].

The remaining workshop interventions (n = 17) incorporated SHA as part of the general educational topic, though the PLISSIT model is not mentioned. For example, two educational interventions focused on assessing sexual dysfunction in men and women [25, 57]. Three others concentrated on women’s sexual and reproductive health, including SHA for unplanned pregnancies, STDs, and pelvic infections [32, 38, 45], as well as SH in the elderly [48]. Another two studies focused on oncological topics, with one study basing their SHA on the “Did you CARD her?” model [28]. Another four educational interventions included SHA as part of their curricula, but SHA was not the primary focus, with no information on the PLISSIT model [27, 46, 51, 59]. Additional three studies focused on the SH of the LGBT population with no specific information regarding a model for SHA [34, 51, 60]. Finally, two educational interventions dealt with sexual trauma and child abuse but did not provide specific details on SHA [31, 36].

The final category of educational interventions included semester courses for “long-term training” (see Table 2). Of the four studies (n = 6), only one provided a comprehensive SHE curricula including advanced SHA skills, such as the effects of diseases/medications on sexual functioning [44]. The educational content in this study covered the biopsychosocial components of SH but did not specify which SHA model was used.

In the other five studies, SHA is adapted to the interventional topics and restricted to assessing LGBTQ SH [37, 39, 42], sexual reproductive health [49], and sexual dysfunctions [41].

Duration of educational intervention

There was a wide variation concerning the duration of the educational intervention. For instance, the length of a one-time intervention curriculum ranged from a brief one-hour lecture [29, 30] to extensive training that entailed four hours of hands-on practice [54]. Most one-time educational intervention programs (n = 5) lasted two hours and utilized various teaching methods [33, 35, 43, 58, 59]. Three studies did not report on the duration of educational interventions [29, 40, 53].

Different durations of workshops were found across studies, ranging from 45 min [28] to 2 h [31], and 4 h [32]. Some interventions lasted half a day without specifying the exact hours [25, 55, 60], while others spanned between 6 to 8 h [34, 45, 57]. Longer interventions ranged from 10 h [27] to 16 h [52], 18 h [56], and two days, with no specific hour reporting [36, 47]. In two studies, no information was provided regarding the duration of the intervention program [27, 46].

Long-term educational interventions were different regarding duration, ranging from courses lasting a semester [37, 41, 44] to one annual course [41, 49] and a continual seminar without a precisely reported duration [39]. These educational interventions were delivered in the context of health professional educational curricula or professional staff educational interventions.

Evaluation of the sexual health education curricula

Table 3 represents the analyses of SHE curricula (n = 11), including methods of evaluating the improvement in SHA performance following the intervention. Of these, eight studies revealed improvement in SH skills, but these findings were based solely on self-reports [25, 28, 34, 37, 42, 47, 54, 55]. Only three studies evaluated SHA using actual behavioral change [26, 27, 51]. One study by Loeb (2010) described improvement in SHA skills in professional practice based on patient chart review. After the educational intervention, participants frequently asked about sexual practices, partners, and contraception [26]. Another two studies [27, 51] used an OSCE clinical examination and chart review to evaluate the education curriculum. The study results indicated significant behavioral change regarding SHA and patient education in general. However, participants from one study [27], experienced only one simulation focused on SHA skills. In contrast, in another study, the SHA was evaluated online without follow-up [51].

Table 3 Evaluation of sexual health educational interventions
Full size table

Discussion

The current systematic review evaluated educational interventional studies that included SHE interventions for health professional students. Specifically, the review detailed the duration of these educational interventions with SHA content (knowledge, attitudes, and skills). Additionally, the review explored how the educational intervention was evaluated, whether through self-reported measures or via an actual performance of SHA. Among the 36 articles, which constituted an international health professional student sample, few educational interventions in SH were found for nursing students. If at all, these SHE interventions focused mainly on senior nursing students. This finding aligns with the literature review [19], wherein most educational interventions aimed at addressing SH include graduate students, interns, or professionals’ continuing education post-graduation.

The research findings corroborated the assertions made by Blakey and colleagues (2017) regarding the absence of comprehensive SH education for nursing students [10]. Therefore, the researchers argued that this lacuna in SHE contributes to the lack of emphasis on SH matters in professional practice [10]. Furthermore, these findings shed light on the global insufficiency of adequate SHE provided to health professional students during their early years of study, contradicting the recommendations set forth by the World Health Organization [6]. It is suggested that further research be conducted to examine the correlation between the omission of SHA in health professionals’ curricula, particularly in the early stages of learning, and practitioners’ inattentiveness to SH during clinical practice. Understanding that SHA is one of the essential competencies would encourage health professional education experts to integrate this content as suggested in the literature [9, 12, 13].

This systematic review identified various SHE interventions that differed in duration, educational content, and teaching methods. Similar variability was also observed in other systematic reviews [19, 20]. Coverdale (2011) emphasized the importance of consistency in determining educational variables and the need for diverse research designs to enhance the quality of evidence [19]. Our systematic review revealed differences in intervention variables and evaluation procedures. In addition, we noticed inconsistencies in research designs, as some studies lacked follow-up measurements, indicating the need for more rigorous evaluations in future studies. Similarly, our literature review uncovered diversity in the duration and content of educational interventions, consistent with the findings reported by Verrastro (2020) [20]. These variations underscored the lack of standardization in SHE for health professional students.

The literature suggested integrating SHA with all curricular components, including knowledge, attitudes, and skills [5, 18]. This integrated approach offered a foundational framework for comprehending the various factors that influence SH in both health and disease. By employing the three principles of SHA, students can acquire knowledge and skills, develop a deeper understanding of their personal attitudes toward the subject, and cultivate a sense of professional responsibility regarding SH as an integral part of their practice [5, 18]. It has been documented that professionals can only proceed to more advanced SH skills after reconciling personal beliefs with professional obligations [5, 18].

The current systematic review highlighted the variation in the content of educational intervention programs. For example, while many studies have developed interventions focused on the SH of LGBTQ populations and/or women’s health issues, only a few interventions have incorporated SHA skills based on the comprehensive 6P’S model [15] and the PLISSIT model [16]. This is unfortunate since these models provide a structured approach to discussing SH. Omitting these principles in most interventions or providing educational interventions that only cover specific aspects of SH may not foster a sense of comprehensive responsibility and dedication to the subject. Despite having positive attitudes toward the topic, students struggled to address patients’ SH, as reported in the literature, while SHA was perceived as daunting [11]. It is possible that establishing teaching standards for comprehensive SHA could provide a consistent foundation for professionals’ sexual health education. Nevertheless, it is advisable to conduct future research to determine whether this standard fosters the health professional students’ ability to initiate conversations about SH.

Finally, this systematic review reported different evaluation methods used to assess the effectiveness of SHE interventions. Only a few interventions included evaluating SHA in clinical practice. Instead, most of the programs relied on self-reported data, which may be affected by participant biases. As a result, it is challenging to draw definitive conclusions about the actual effectiveness of these interventions in practice. To address this issue, researchers recommend using an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) for practical application, which has been identified as the most reliable way to evaluate curriculum [18].

Limitations

This systematic review had several limitations. First, valuable insights from similar studies published in other languages were missed by solely incorporating articles in English. This fact possibly limited the quality of evidence and the extent to which the findings can be generalized. Moreover, it is conceivable that some pertinent studies were omitted from our review due to using a predetermined search strategy. Furthermore, it is worth noting that only a limited number of studies centered on nursing students, suggesting potential biases in interpreting the results. The present systematic review did not explore cultural and socio-demographic factors that could impact students’ attitudes and clinical abilities in SHA. Adapting programs requires tailoring interventions to cultural nuances and integrating content on cultural sensitivity within the curriculum.

Conclusions

Health assessment encompasses a thorough approach that enables the evaluation of patient’s health from a biopsychosocial standpoint [5]. This approach considers various aspects of an individual’s life that can influence their well-being, including SH. Creating standardized SH education curricula and integrating vital SHA skills enables health professional students to acquire the necessary knowledge and capabilities for patient SH evaluation. This study highlighted a significant gap in SH educational intervention. Varied learning objectives, intervention durations, and curriculum methods posed challenges in evaluating intervention program effectiveness. Examining educational outcomes and establishing guidelines for comprehensive SH professional education, incorporating SHA skills, and extending it to all healthcare students involved in direct patient care, is crucial.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author (NB1) on reasonable request.

References

  1. World Association for Sexual Health. Declaration of sexual rights. 2014. https://worldsexualhealth.net/resources/declaration-of-sexual-rights/.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). The code. Professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses, midwives and nursing associates. 2015. http://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/nmc-publications/revised-new-nmc-code.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  3. East L, Hutchinson M. Moving beyond the therapeutic relationship: a selective review of intimacy in the sexual health encounter in nursing practice. J Clin Nurs. 2013;22(23–24):3568–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. American Association of Colleges of Nursing. The essentials: competencies for professional nursing education. 2021. https://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/0/PDFs/Publications/Essentials-2021.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Berman A, Frandsen G, Snyder S, Kozier, B. Kozier & Erb’s fundamentals of nursing: concepts, process, and practice. London: Pearson Education; 2022.

  6. World Health Organization. Sexual and reproductive health: defining sexual health. 2000. http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/sexual_health/sh_definitions/en/.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wittenberg A, Gerber J. Original research—education: recommendations for improving sexual health curricula in medical schools: results from a two-arm study collecting data from patients and medical students. J Sex Med. 2009;6(2):362–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.01046.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gerbild H, Larsen CM, Junge T, Laursen BS, Areskoug-Josefsson K. Danish health professional students’ attitudes toward addressing sexual health: a cross-sectional survey. J Sex Med. 2021;9(2):100323–100323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2021.100323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Annerstedt CF, Glasdam S. Nurses’ attitudes towards support for and communication about sexual health—a qualitative study from the perspectives of oncological nurses. J Clin Nurs. 2019;28(19–20):3556–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Blakey EP, Aveyard H. Student nurses’ competence in sexual health care: a literature review. J Clinic Nurs. 2017;26(2324):3906–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jadoon SB, Nasir S, Victor G, Pienaar AJ. Knowledge attitudes and readiness of nursing students in assessing peoples’ sexual health problems. Nurse Educ Today. 2022;113:105371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fennell R, Grant B. Discussing sexuality in health care: a systematic review. J Clin Nurs. 2019;28(17–18):3065–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhang X, Sherman L, Foster M. Patients’ and providers’ perspectives on sexual health discussion in the United States: a scoping review. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(11):2205–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.06.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Althof SE, Rosen RC, Perelman MA, Rubio-Aurioles E. Standard operating procedures for taking a sexual history. J Sex Med. 2013;10(1):26–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02823.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. National Coalition for Sexual Health. Sexual health and your patients: a provider’s guide. 2021. https://nationalcoalitionforsexualhealth.org/tools/for-healthcare-providers.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Annon JS. The PLISSIT model: a proposed conceptual scheme for the behavioral treatment of sexual problems. Gen Proced. 1977:70–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-020373-7.50019-x.

  17. Shindel AW, Baazeem A, Eardley I, Coleman E. Sexual health in undergraduate medical education: existing and future needs and platforms. J Sex Med. 2016;13(7):1013–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.04.069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rubin ES, Rullo J, Tsai P, Criniti S, Elders J, Thielen JM, Parish SJ. Best practices in North American pre-clinical medical education in sexual history taking: consensus from the summits in medical education in sexual health. J Sex Med. 2018;15(10):1414–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.08.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Coverdale JH, Balon R, Roberts LW. Teaching sexual history-taking: a systematic review of educational programs. Acad Med. 2011;86(12):1590–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e318234ea41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Verrastro V, Saladino V, Petruccelli F, Eleuteri S. Medical and health care professionals’ sexuality education: state of the art and recommendations. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(7):2186. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Page MJ, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff J, Moher D. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the Prisma 2020 statement. 2020. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/jb4dx.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4.

  23. Thomas BH, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Micucci S. A process for systematically reviewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. World Evid Based Nurs. 2004;1(3):176–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475x.2004.04006.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Armijo-Olivo S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA, Biondo PD, Cummings GG. Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane collaboration risk of bias tool and the effective public health practice project quality assessment tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;18(1):12–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01516.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rosen R, Kountz D, Post-Zwicker T, Leiblum S, Wiegel M. Original research—education: Sexual communication skills in residency training: the robert wood johnson model. J Sex Med. 2006;3(1):37–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.00135.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Loeb DF, Aagaard EM, Cali SR, Lee RS. Modest impact of a brief curricular intervention on poor documentation of sexual history in university-based resident internal medicine clinics. J Sex Med. 2010;7(10):3315–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01883.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zabar S, Hanley K, Stevens DL, Ciotoli C, Hsieh A, Griesser C, Anderson M, Kalet A. Can interactive skills-based seminars with standardized patients enhance clinicians’ prevention skills? Measuring the impact of a CME program. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80(2):248–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.11.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang LY, Pierdomenico A, Lefkowitz A, Brandt R. Female sexual health training for oncology providers: new applications. Sex Med. 2015;3(3):189–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/sm2.66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Neff A, Kingery S. Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome: a problem-based learning case. MedEdPORTAL. 2016. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cooper MB, Chacko M, Christner J. Incorporating LGBT health in an undergraduate medical education curriculum through the construct of social determinants of health. MedEdPORTAL. 2018. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Taylor LE, Harris HS. Stewards of children education: Increasing undergraduate nursing student knowledge of child sexual abuse. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;60:147–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.10.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shroff S, Spataro B, Jeong K, Rothenberger S, Rubio D, McNeil M. Let’s talk about sex: development and evaluation of a sexual history and counseling curriculum for internal medicine interns. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(7):1298–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2018.02.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Stumbar SE, Garba NA, Holder C. “Let’s talk about sex: the social determinants of sexual and reproductive health for second-year medical students.” MedEdPORTAL. 2018. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Frasca K, Castillo-Mancilla J, McNulty MC, Connors S, Sweitzer E, Zimmer S, Madinger N. A mixed methods evaluation of an inclusive sexual history taking and HIV prevention curriculum for trainees. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(7):1279–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-04958-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Grova MM, Donohue SJ, Bahnson M, Meyers MO, Bahnson EM. Allyship in surgical residents: evidence for LGBTQ competency training in surgical education. J Surg Res. 2020;260:169–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.11.072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Nathan S, Ferrara M. An innovative trauma-informed curriculum for sexual assault care. J Nurs Educ. 2020;59(6):336–40. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20200520-07.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. White BP, Abuelezam NA, Dwyer AA, Fontenot HB. A sexual health course for advanced practice registered nurses: effect on preparedness, comfort, and confidence in delivering comprehensive care. Nurse Educ Today. 2020;92:104506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Friedlander R, Mou S, Shearer L. Diversity in reproductive health and human sexuality: assessing attitudes comfort and knowledge in learners before and after pilot curriculum. Fam Med. 2021;53(5):362–5. https://doi.org/10.22454/fammed.2021.456130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mahabamunuge J, Morel K, Budrow J, Tounkel I, Hart C, Briskin C, Kasoff M, Spiegel S, Risucci D, Koestler J. Increasing medical student confidence in gender and sexual health through a student-initiated lecture series. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2021;9(4):189–96. https://doi.org/10.30476/JAMP.2021.90099.1398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ojo A, Singer MR, Morales B, Merz AA, Molina RL, Pelletier A, Carmen A, Moreno MA, Lopez-Carmen VA, Ye SY, Starosta A, Rowley J, Yin SH, Amanuel H, Radford CC, Schwartz LN, Wijangco I, Jowell AR, Schaefer KM, Potter J, Mateo CM, Bartz D. Reproductive justice: a case-based, interactive curriculum. MedEdPORTAL. 2022. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.11275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Ross MW, Bayer CR, Shindel A, Coleman E. Evaluating the impact of a medical school cohort sexual health course on knowledge, counseling skills and sexual attitude change. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02482-x.

  42. Roth LT, Catallozzi M, Soren K, Lane M, Friedman S. Bridging the gap in graduate medical education: a longitudinal pediatric lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, Queer/Questioning Health Curriculum. Acad Pediatr. 2021;21(8):1449–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2021.05.027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Bear MD, Mukherjee SM, Goldsmith CA. Transgender health education for pharmacy students and its effect on student knowledge and attitudes. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2021;13(10):1351–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2021.07.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sung SC, Lin YC. Effectiveness of the sexual healthcare education in nursing students’ knowledge, attitude, and self-efficacy on sexual healthcare. Nurse Educ Today. 2013;33(5):498–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.06.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kim M, Shin M. Development and evaluation of simulation-problem–based learning for sex education. Comput Inform Nurs. 2016;34(1):17–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/cin.0000000000000200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Cummins AM, Wight R, Watts N, Catling C. Introducing sensitive issues and self-care strategies to first year midwifery students. Midwifery. 2018;61:8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2018.02.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ross MW, Leshabari S, Rosser BRS, Trent M, Mgopa L, Wadley J, Kohli N, Agardh A. Evaluation of an assessment instrument for a sexual health curriculum for nurses and midwifery students in Tanzania: the Sexual Health Education for professional’s scale (Sheps). Appl Nurs Res. 2018;40:152–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2018.01.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ng AH, Boey KW. Enhancement of Hong Kong nursing students’ knowledge and attitudes regarding sexuality in older adults. Int J Sex Health. 2020;32(4):342–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2020.181866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. ÜnalToprak F, Turan Z. The effect of sexual health courses on the level of nursing students’ sexual/reproductive health knowledge and sexual myths beliefs in Turkey: a pretest-posttest control group design. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2020;57(2):667–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppc.12593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. SarpkayaGüder D, Tekbaş S. The effect of sexual health course on students’ level of belief in sexual myths. Int J Sex Health. 2021;34(2):267–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2021.2005730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mert-Karadas M, Yucel-Ozcirpan C. The impact of an educational program based on the reproductive health of LGBT individuals developed for nursing students to improve the knowledge, skills and attitudes of students: a quasi-experimental study. Nurse Educ Pract. 2023;70:103668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kim JH, Shin JS. Effects of an online problem-based learning program on sexual health care competencies among oncology nurses: a pilot study. J Continuing Educ Nurs. 2014;45(9):393–401. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20140826-02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Wiskin C, Roberts L, Roalfe A. The impact of discussing a sexual history in role-play simulation teaching on pre-clinical student attitudes towards people who submit for STI testing. Med Teach. 2011;33(6). https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2011.575902.

  54. McBain L, Pullon S, Garrett S, Hoare K. Genital examination training: assessing the effectiveness of an integrated female and male teaching program. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0822-y.

  55. Cushing A, Evans D, Hall A. Medical students’ attitudes and behaviour towards sexual health interviewing: short- and long-term evaluation of designated workshops. Med Teach. 2005;27(5):422–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590500046502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Gianotten WL, Bender JL, Post MW, Höing M. Training in sexology for medical and paramedical professionals: a model for the rehabilitation setting. Sex Relatsh Ther. 2006;21(3):303–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681990600754559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Athanasiadis L, Papaharitou S, Salpiggidis G, Tsimtsiou Z, Nakopoulou E, Kirana PS, Moisidis K, Hatzichristou D. Educating physicians to treat erectile dysfunction patients: development and evaluation of a course on communication and management strategies. J Sex Med. 2006;3(1):47–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.00195.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kennedy KM, Vellinga A, Bonner N, Stewart B, McGrath D. How teaching on the care of the victim of sexual violence alters undergraduate medical students’ awareness of the key issues involved in patient care and their attitudes to such patients. J Forensic Leg Med. 2013;20(6):582–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2013.06.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Micheal S, Marjadi B. Blended learning to teach gender in medical school. Clin Teach. 2018;15(3):208–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Salkind J, Gishen F, Drage G, Kavanagh J, Potts HWW. LGBT+ health teaching within the undergraduate medical curriculum. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(13):2305. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The corresponding author is grateful to Sara Nissenbaum – Goldstein, Ph.D. Fellowship in Nursing for their invaluable support in making this research possible.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Nursing in the Faculty of Medicine, Henrietta Szold Hadassah Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

    Nikole Bekman Troxman Prize, Sarit Shimony - Kanat & Anna C. Kienski Woloski Wruble

Authors
  1. Nikole Bekman Troxman Prize
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarit Shimony - Kanat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna C. Kienski Woloski Wruble
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

N. BTP and A. WLR wrote the main text and tables (1,2). S.SK wrote Table 3 and prepared figures. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikole Bekman Troxman Prize.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prize, N.B.T., Kanat, S.S.. & Wruble, A.C.K.W. Gaps in sexual health content of healthcare professional curriculum: a systematic review of educational interventions. BMC Med Educ 23, 926 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04901-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04901-1

Keywords

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

Contact us