Dermatological diseases, sexuality and intimate relationships: A qualitative meta‐synthesis

Abstract

Aims and objectives To conduct a systematic review and meta‐synthesis of findings from qualitative research about sexuality and intimate relationship among patients with dermatological diseases. Background Over the last few decades, there has been an increase in clinical research investigating aspects related to sex and sexuality in patients living with dermatological diseases. In fact, studies recognise a negative impact on various aspects of intimacy, such as sexual function, self‐esteem and romantic relationships. The body of qualitative literature about sexuality in the context of dermatological diseases is emerging but consists mainly of small studies that would benefit from aggregation, synthesis and interpretation to highlight and summarise the overarching dimensions to this clinical issue. Design A systematic review and meta‐synthesis of qualitative studies. Methods BioMed Central, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, ERIC, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched between June–November 2017 with no publication date limits. Screening and selection of studies was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines (PRISMA). After retrieval, the qualitative data were subject to meta‐synthesis to identify overarching themes. Results Ten qualitative studies were found. We identified four themes: (a) Embarrassment and shame; (b) Impaired sense of attractiveness and sexual avoidance; (c) Relationship issues; and (d) Lack of professional support. The patients in these studies adopted negative coping styles, such as avoidance and hiding their bodies. Conclusion When assessing and evaluating patient care in dermatology, it is important that sexuality and the impact the disease could have on relationships is included. Relevance to clinical practice An important part of nursing care is ensuring that patients are helped to develop positive coping strategies rather than negative ones. Patients with dermatological conditions also need advice and treatment to address any physically related sexual problems. Nurses need to be the initiators of these sensitive conversations to put patients at ease and work together to implement positive measures to reduce the sexuality‐related issues patients face.

‘These Discussions Aren’t Happening’: Experiences of People Living with Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Talking About Sexual Well-being with Health Care Professionals

“…The literature is predominantly based on HCPs’ views and not on patients’ views. Studies have covered views of oncology, 10–12 cardiovascular disease, 13 rheumatology, 14 and dermatology patients, 15 but no literature was found on views of those living with IBD.…”

“…Our participants’ perceptions are consistent with those of oncology, rheumatology, heart disease, and dermatology patients. 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 Participants in cancer studies wanted to be asked about their sexuality issues and preferred to receive information on the topic from their HCP. 17 , 24 One barrier was the perceived lack of interest from HCPs in discussing sexuality/sexual well-being with the participants.…”

Health professionals and students’ experiences of reflective writing in learning: A qualitative meta-synthesis

“…We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP): it provides ten simple guiding questions and examples to examine study validity, adequacy, and potential applicability of the results of qualitative studies. Guided by the work of Long and colleagues [32] and previously used in other meta-synthesis [33], we created 30 items from the 10 CASP questions on quality to ensure we could provide a detailed appraisal of the studies. FDV and LD independently assessed the quality of included studies with any conflicts solved by consulting a third reviewer (MCB and LG).…”

Current Utilization of Qualitative Methodologies in Dermatology: A Scoping Review

“…The characteristics of included studies are reported in Table 1. Of these studies, 127 represented original work, and seven were systematic reviews ( Ablett and Thompson, 2016 ; Barisone et al., 2020 ; Ip et al., 2021 ; Nakayama et al., 2016 ; Singh et al., 2019 ; Sumpton et al., 2020 ; Teasdale et al., 2021 ). Studies occurred in 23 countries, with the majority conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States (49 of 134, 36.6% and 43 of 134, 32.1%, respectively).…”