Nurses' Provision of Sexual and Reproductive Health to Community-Dwelling Older Adults: An Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To explore barriers and facilitators to nurses' provision of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) care to community-dwelling older adults. Method An integrative literature review was performed using Whittemore and Knafl's method. Three databases were searched for research conducted between 2012 and 2023, and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to determine the quality of included studies. Results Nine studies were ultimately included for analysis, and themes were Barriers to SRH Care and Facilitators of SRH Care . Barriers to SRH Care included: nurses' lack of knowledge about older adults' sexual health, discomfort discussing sexual topics, age-related stereotypes regarding older adults' sexuality, and older adults' lack of knowledge of and reluctance to discuss sexuality and sexual health issues. Facilitators of SRH Care included: gender of health care provider, nursing education on effective communication strategies, encouraging open dialogue to challenge ageist perceptions, and sexual education for older adults. Conclusion Findings underscore the impact of stigma and negative ageist assumptions on whether discussions about SRH occur between nurses and older adults. There is a need for comprehensive education for nurses and older adults about SRH to recognize sexual health needs and promote open and constructive conversations. Moreover, research about how to best facilitate older adults' SRH is needed. [ Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 50 (10), 17–23.]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".