The Relationship Between Daily Hassles and Sexual Function in Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychological stressors can interfere with sexual function through psychological and physiological mechanisms. Chronic stress, in particular, seems to have a negative effect on sexual functioning for men and women. The present study was designed to identify categories of stressors that contribute to sexual difficulties as well as assess the role of anxiety and depression in the relationship between stress and sexual function. Participants were recruited for an online survey in which they completed questionnaires on daily stressors, anxiety, depression, and sexual function. Results indicated that daily stressors predicted lower scores on sexual satisfaction for men and women and sexual activity for women. These effects were mediated by scores on the depression scale. Daily stressors, depression, and anxiety were highly correlated. A factor analysis of stressors resulted in 5 distinct categories of stressors. Of these, financial stressors and stressors related to low socioeconomic status were related to lower scores on all aspects of sexual functioning for women but not for men. Women's sexual functioning scores were more strongly related to stress and depression than men's scores. Results suggest that contextual factors (e.g., daily stressors, depression) are important considerations when assessing problems with sexual functioning.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".