Background Contraceptive and sexual healthcare is increasingly delivered in an integrated setting in the UK and worldwide, requiring staff to be competent in differing styles of delivery, and to have a wide knowledge base.
Objectives We did a scoping review of the literature for evidence of the resources that exist for healthcare professionals to guide or structure the process of conducting an integrated sexual and reproductive health (SRH) consultation.
Eligibility criteria Articles were included in the review if (1) their primary focus was a consultation resource related to one or more aspects of an SRH consultation and (2) they provided details of the resource and/or its application including evaluation of use.
Sources of evidence Peer-reviewed articles published in English, published non-peer-reviewed guides, and web-based guidelines addressing the conduct of a contraception or sexual health consultation were included. Date range: 1998–December 2018. Searches were carried out in the databases AMED (Ovid), ASSIA (ProQuest), CINAHL Complete (EBSCO), Cochrane Library (Wiley), HMIC (NHS Evidence), Medline (EBSCO), PsycINFO (Proquest) and Scopus (Elsevier) on 10 February 2017, and incremental searching performed until December 2018.
Results A total of 12 peer-reviewed journal articles, two web-published guidelines from the Faculty of Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare and three published, non-peer-reviewed resources were included.
Conclusion Many resources exist to guide either the contraceptive or sexual health consultations, but there is a lack of a comprehensive consultation resource to guide the conduct of an integrated consultation.
- education and training
- family planning service provision
- genitourinary medicine
- service delivery
- integrated services
- consultation process
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors SW, HP and KS conceived the review. Mel Gee advised on and carried out the literature searching. Dr Lesley Hoggart participated in the screening of titles and abstracts. Mel Gee, SW, HP, Dr Lesley Hoggart and FA participated in planning the review and the screening process. SW, HP, KS and FA contributed to the analysis and interpretation of the data and to the writing of the manuscript.
Funding This literature review was funded by an internal grant from Anglia Ruskin University.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.