ArticleSexual medicine2025
The experience of gay Christian men attending collaborative workshops facilitated by a sexual health professional and a priest.
Article in Sexual medicine, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although workshops facilitated by a sexual health professional and a priest to support gay Christian men who struggle with accepting their sexuality and religious identity have been organized, the experience of attending such workshops has not been studied. Aim: To understand the experience of gay Christian men who attended collaborative workshops. Methods: Six collaborative workshops were conducted between a sexual health clinic and a church in central London from January to September 2018. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 11 gay Christian men who participated in the workshops. Data on their experiences were collected through semistructured interviews, images, and the innovative method of haiku poetry, which was used to reflect on their experiences during and after the workshops. All the data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Outcome: Gaining insights into the experiences of gay Christian men who participated in collaborative workshops. Results: The collaborative workshops had a significant impact on gay Christian men in two key areas: self-perception and relationships. The contributing factors to this influence were either environmental or personal. Three themes emerged: motivation, self-development, and the influence of the environment. Some participants embraced the workshops, while others experienced a sense of urgency. The workshops were experienced as fostering their self-growth. In contrast, others were reminded of their destructive behaviors, which left them feeling hopeless. For some participants, the workshop's environment highlighted their minority status as a strength, whereas for others, it highlighted their loneliness. Clinical Implication: This study showed the importance of understanding motivation for attending the collaborative workshops. Strengths and Limitations: Although the findings cannot be generalized to all religious and sexual minorities, they can inform future collaborations. Although a small sample was recruited, it provided an in-depth understanding of the experiences of these men. Limited funding restricted the workshops' accessibility to hard-to-reach communities. The data were analyzed from a psychological perspective. Conclusion: This study introduces a novel model for integrating religion and sexuality. It adapts Maslow's hierarchy of needs for gay Christian men to include freedom from shame as an essential requirement, subsequently fostering belongingness, connection, and love.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.