A Comparison of the Sexual Well-Being of New Parents with Community Couples
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Changes in sexual well-being are common for new mothers and their partners after the birth of a baby. However, most research has sampled mothers not couples, assessed only one aspect of sexual well-being, and has not included a control sample of couples. AIM: This study aimed to compare the sexual well-being (ie, sexual frequency, sexual satisfaction, sexual desire, sexual distress) of first-time mothers and their partners in the transition to parenthood (first 12-month postpartum) to community couples who are not actively in this transition. We also compared the sexual well-being within couples (eg, mothers to their partners). METHODS: Couples in the transition to parenthood (n = 99) completed measures of sexual satisfaction, sexual desire, sexual distress, and sexual frequency at 3, 6, and 12 months postpartum, and community couples (n = 104) completed the measures at a single time point. OUTCOMES: Measures included the following: (i) Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction Scale; (ii) Female Sexual Function Index and International Index of Erectile Function sexual desire subscale; (iii) Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised; and (iv) checklist of sexual behaviors. RESULTS: Compared with community controls, new parents reported lower sexual satisfaction, lower sexual desire, and higher sexual distress at all time-points; however, these group differences became less pronounced by 12 months postpartum. By 6 months postpartum, there was no difference in sexual frequency between postpartum couples and the control group. Mothers experienced persistently lower sexual desire relative to their partners throughout the 12 months postpartum. Between 39% and 59% of mothers reported clinically low sexual desire, and 47-57% reported significant sexual distress at all time points. There were no significant differences reported in sexual satisfaction, sexual desire, or sexual distress between women and their partners in the community sample. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should be aware that sexual well-being may be compromised in new parents, and some of these challenges are still present for new parents at 12 months postpartum. Findings can be used to educate new parents regarding their expectations about postpartum sexual well-being. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: The strengths of the present study are the dyadic approach, assessing multiple aspects of sexual well-being in new parents over time, and the comparison with a community sample. An important limitation is that the control sample was not followed up over time. CONCLUSION: Education regarding postpartum sexual well-being should be incorporated in routine perinatal and postnatal healthcare practices to support new parents in developing realistic expectations about changes during the transition to parenthood, potentially preventing undue distress. Schwenck GC, Dawson SJ, Muise A, et al. A Comparison of the Sexual Well-Being of New Parents With Community Couples. J Sex Med 2020;17:2156-2167.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».