ArticleBMC nursing2026
Examining the relationship between sexual health literacy and sexual myths of students at the faculty of health sciences with structural equation modeling.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to examine the relationship between sexual health literacy and sexual myths among health sciences students using structural equation modeling.
methodsDesigned as cross-sectional research, data were collected from students in the midwifery and nursing departments of a university in Southeastern Anatolia. The Personal Information Form, Sexual Health Literacy Scale (SHLS), and Sexual Myths Scale (SMS) were used. Ethical approval was obtained (Decision number: 29/1 1/2023-477). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation analysis, and structural equation modeling (SEM) with SPSS 25 and JAMOVI 2.3.28.
resultsResults showed that 58.6% of participants were aged 18-21, 79.4% were female, 38.7% had a family member to talk to about sexuality, and 46.8% used the internet as a source of sexual information. The mean SHLS score was 52.07 ± 8.11, while the mean SMS score was 68.04 ± 15.59. A negative, weak, and statistically significant correlation was found between SHLS and SMS (r = -0.155; p = 0.001). The SEM analysis indicated that sexual myths were significantly associated with sexual health literacy, accounting for approximately 2.4% of the variance in SHLS scores within the tested model.
conclusionsThe mean SHLS score was slightly above the midpoint of the possible scale range, suggesting a moderate level of sexual health literacy among the participants. According to the structural equation model, sexual health literacy (dependent variable) and sexual myths (independent variable) explained a small proportion of the variance. Higher sexual health literacy scores were associated with lower levels of belief in sexual myths.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.