Erectile Dysfunction (ED) is a Shared Sexual Concern of Couples I: Couple Conceptions of ED
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Erectile dysfunction (ED) may be regarded as a shared sexual concern with a significant negative impact on both patients and their partners. AIM: The current research sought to explore the degree of concordance or divergence of couple members' perceptions of the specific functional impairments characterizing the man's ED, and the concordance or discordance of their attitudes, beliefs and experiences about the male partner's erectile difficulty. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to partners of men who participated in the Men's Attitudes to Life Events and Sexuality (MALES) 2004 study, who consented to their partner's involvement. A modified version of the questionnaire used in the MALES study was employed, adapted to reflect the female partner's perspective. Questionnaire responses were analyzed in relation to responses provided by male study participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: A 65-item questionnaire assessing women's perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes regarding aspects of ED. RESULTS: High levels of concordance between couple members were observed across almost all items. Women's perceptions of both the specific functional impairments characterizing their partner's ED and the frequency of the partner's erection difficulty were strongly associated with assessments the men themselves had made. Significant associations were also observed between couple members' responses relating to their beliefs about the causes of ED, effects of ED on the relationship, communication about ED, finding a solution to ED, and attitudes toward medication. A number of specific male-female discordant perceptions and attitudes were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this study demonstrate a high degree of concordance in couple members' perceptions of the male partner's ED, and in their attitudes and beliefs about ED. Specific instances of discordance between couple members may contribute to treatment avoidance or couple conflict.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".