“No doctor ever asked me…so I thought it wasn't a valid concern”: endometriosis patients’ perspectives of barriers and facilitators to sexual health communication in general practice

Rebekah Davenport, Jacqueline Mills, Hannah L. McHardy, Hannah McHardy, Taryn Lores, Kerry Sherman, Sherman, Kerry, RoseAnne Misajon, Leesa Van Niekerk, Van Niekerk, Leesa
The journal of sexual medicine · 2024 · vol. 22(1) , pp. 26–35 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdae145 · PMID:39545356 · W4404434573
article OA: hybrid CC0 ⤵ 2 in-corpus citations
🔓 Open OA copy View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

This study explored how individuals with endometriosis perceive sexual health communication with GPs, identifying systemic, practitioner, patient, and interpersonal barriers and facilitators to such discussions.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sexual health communication between general practitioners (GPs) and individuals with chronic diseases is well documented as an important component of sexual well-being. However, a notable gap exists in understanding factors that contribute to sexual health communication in the endometriosis context. Endometriosis-related research has focused on the assessment of sexual functioning and its role in influencing health-related quality of life, with a limited understanding of the management of sexual well-being in primary healthcare settings. AIM: To explore how individuals with endometriosis perceive their experiences of sexual health communication with GPs to understand the barriers and facilitators of this communication in general practice. METHODS: This study formed part of a larger online quantitative survey measuring psychological and sexual well-being in individuals with endometriosis. In total 141 participants provided responses via open-ended unlimited free-text questions focused on their experiences of sexual health communication with GPs, including their perspectives on barriers and facilitators. RESULTS: Four overarching themes regarding barriers to sexual health communication were identified through thematic template analysis: (1) systemic factors; (2) practitioner factors; (3) patient factors; and (4) interpersonal factors. Facilitators mirrored strategies to address these barriers. Additionally, participants offered recommendations for developing resources to improve sexual health communication. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Despite patients' interest, sexual health concerns in endometriosis are commonly overlooked in general practice due to various barriers, which individuals suggest could be addressed through comprehensive GP education and practical aids including communication tools. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Although the sample is large for a qualitative study, the potential selection bias-stemming from participants' high levels of sexual dysfunction and motivation to discuss sexual health with a GP-may limit the diversity of perspectives. GP perspectives were not evaluated, precluding any assessment of the accuracy of individuals' perceptions of practitioner factors. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with endometriosis encounter various systematic, practitioner, personal, and interpersonal factors that hinder or facilitate sexual health communication in general practice. Future research should prioritize strategies to improve sexual health communication for both GPs and patients.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Physician-Patient Relations Physician-Patient Relations Physician-Patient Relations Physician-Patient Relations Physician-Patient Relations Physician-Patient Relations Sexual Health Sexual Health Sexual Health Sexual Health Sexual Health Sexual Health

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (56)

Cited by (2)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-06-12T06:13:51.797165+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-16T00:32:02.878706+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK