A scoping review of parent-based barriers to parent–child communication about sexuality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Parent-child communication about sexuality plays a critical role in promoting adolescents' sexual and reproductive health, yet such discussions are limited across diverse cultural contexts. Despite the importance of comprehensive sexuality, parents frequently face barriers that hinder open and accurate dialogue. This scoping review aims to map the literature on parent-based barriers to sexuality communication with children and youth. It seeks to identify the barriers parents encounter and the socio-cultural dynamics that influence these interactions globally. Methods Following the Joanna Briggs Institute framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across 8 databases, yielding 59 peer-reviewed studies from 2000 to 2024. Eligible studies explored parent-child communication on sexuality, focused on barriers and employed qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods designs. Results Six key themes emerged as barriers: (1) parental discomfort and lack of confidence; (2) limited knowledge and educational gaps; (3) restrictive cultural and religious norms; (4) gendered expectations and communication disparities; (5) heteronormative assumptions excluding Two-Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual (or Ally), plus other sexual and gender identities (2SLGBTQIA+) youth; and (6) concerns about judgment or misinterpretation. These barriers often stem from intergenerational silence, lack of training and societal stigma. Parents of children with disabilities or those identifying as gender-diverse faced additional challenges requiring tailored resources and clinical support. Conclusion Effective sexuality requires proactive, inclusive and culturally grounded parental engagement. Addressing structural and emotional barriers through tailored interventions, healthcare collaboration and educational toolkits is essential. This review underscores the need for future research, policy and health promotion efforts to support parent-based sexuality communication, especially for marginalized and under-resourced caregivers.
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 | 0.023 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".