Oncology Nurses’ Attitudes, Knowledge, and Practices in Providing Sexuality Care to Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual health in cancer care is often overlooked. This study examines oncology nurses' knowledge and practices regarding sexuality care, identifying barriers and facilitators. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided search of Scopus, ScienceDirect, PubMed, and EBSCO focused on studies from 2014 to 2024. Of 1735 identified studies, only 11 met inclusion criteria. Findings revealed a lack of knowledge among nurses and dissatisfaction with sexual healthcare. Barriers include time constraints, cultural factors, and personal reservations. Routine discussions are often absent due to inadequate training. Education- and system-based strategies are needed to enhance nurses' competence in addressing sexual concerns. Implementing training programs, structured records, evaluation tools, concept maps, and system support would improve patient care and oncology nursing practices. Addressing these gaps with practical measures can enhance communication, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. This unique analysis was conducted by two experienced advanced nurses in the Middle East, where discussions about sex are often regarded as taboo.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".