Working with parents to improve the sexual health of adolescents is a popular and promising strategy. As it can be challenging, this review aimed to identify and synthesize barriers to and facilitators of parental participation in empirical studies about adolescent sexual health. A systematic literature review following the PRISMA guidelines was conducted. Nine databases (CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, ERIC, PubMed, PsycInfo, PsycArticles, PSYNDEX, and Web of Science) were searched using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria (e.g., parents of adolescents aged 10–19 years, publications from 2000 to 2023 in English or German, and exclusion of studies from the WHO African Region). The QualSyst Checklist was used to assess study quality. Findings were synthesized narratively due to the heterogeneity of qualitative and quantitative designs. Twenty-four studies from 12 countries were included that mostly focused on interviews and self-reports of parents. Barriers to participation included parents’ perception of sexual health as a low-priority topic, discomfort with the subject, and time constraints due to busy daily schedules. Facilitators included the perceived need for parental support and a promotion of positive views on adolescent sexual health. In addition, parental co-creation of study materials, recruitment strategies, data collection, social proofing and having well-qualified communicators were identified as design-based facilitators of study participation. Most barriers to study participation seem to persist across countries for over two decades, and most research has been done on barriers in lieu of facilitators. Most facilitators were reported by only a single study, limiting the consistency and precision of the current evidence base. Future research should focus, therefore, on facilitators, and co-creation principles and study design recommendations should be implemented more thoroughly.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Muehlmann et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: