MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414104445 · doi:10.1071/sh25076

A scoping review of parent-based barriers to parent–child communication about sexuality

2025· review· en· W4414104445 on OpenAlex
Neelam Saleem Punjani, Shannon D. Scott, Amber Hussain, Tsung‐Hsueh Lu, Farah Bandali, Sheila McDonald, Megan Kennedy

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesAlberta HealthUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityReproductive healthThrushGrounded theoryQueerHealth careFace (sociological concept)Promotion (chess)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.262
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it