ArticleArchives of sexual behavior2023
The Opaque Language of Sexuality: Medical Students' and Providers' Beliefs About Virginity.
Article in Archives of sexual behavior, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Virginity Control and Hymen (re)Construction: Gender Analysis from the Perspective of Young Women.Archives of sexual behavior · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although virginity is not a medical term and is instead socially constructed, it remains unknown what medical providers believe about the biological basis of virginity. This study explored providers' and medical students' beliefs about virginity and the potential impact of such beliefs on healthcare. This was a concurrent mixed-method survey study of 124 medical students and 216 healthcare providers (Registered Nurse, Physician Assistant, Nurse Practitioner, and Doctor of Medicine) at Penn State Health and The Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine. Participants rated their level of agreement with common misconceptions about virginity on a six-point Likert scale. Open-ended questions gave respondents the opportunity to define virginity and to describe terms like virgin and virginal in the context of sexual experience and the medical lexicon. We identified common themes in the qualitative data using thematic analysis. Frequencies of misconceptions and statistically significant demographic associations were identified in the quantitative data. Definitions of virginity were varied and vague, most with negative connotations. A majority of respondents said that virginity has no biological basis. Many participants identified downsides to use of terms like virgin, virginity, and virginal in medicine. The most prevalent misconceptions about virginity were related to the hymen. Seventeen percent of students and 26% of providers at least somewhat agreed that it was possible to determine whether a person has engaged in vaginal intercourse through a gynecological exam. Misconceptions about virginity persist in medicine and bias, even if unintended, may impact the quality-of-care people with vaginas receive. Language around sexual health should be specific, inclusive, clinically relevant, and free from judgment. Medical education must continue to work to eliminate the concept of a biological basis to virginity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37039944What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.