MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Psychological and Interpersonal Dimensions of Sexual Function and Dysfunction

2010· review· en· W2102433596 on OpenAlexaff
Marita P. McCabe, Stanley E. Althof, Pierre Assalian, Marie Chevret‐Méasson, Sandra R. Leiblum, Chiara Simonelli, Kevan Wylie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiopsychosocial modelSexual dysfunctionPsychological interventionInterpersonal communicationPsychologySexual functionFemale sexual dysfunctionReproductive healthPsychotherapistClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Psychological, interpersonal, and sociocultural factors play a significant role in making one vulnerable to developing a sexual concern, in triggering the onset of a sexual difficulty, and in maintaining sexual dysfunction in the long term. AIM: To focus on psychological and interpersonal aspects of sexual functioning in women and men after a critical review of the literature from 2010 to the present. METHODS: This report is part 1 of 2 of our collaborative work during the 2015 International Consultation on Sexual Medicine for Committee 2. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Systematic review of the literature with a focus on publications since 2010. RESULTS: Our work as sexual medicine clinicians is essentially transdisciplinary, which involves not only the collaboration of multidisciplinary professionals but also the integration and application of new knowledge and evaluation and subsequent revision of our practices to ensure the highest level of care provided. There is scant literature on gender non-conforming children and adolescents to clarify specific developmental factors that shape the development of gender identity, orientation, and sexuality. Conversely, studies consistently have demonstrated the interdependence of sexual function between partners, with dysfunction in one partner often contributing to problems in sexual functioning and/or sexual satisfaction for the other. We recommend that clinicians explore attachment styles of patients, childhood experiences (including sexual abuse), onset of sexual activity, personality, cognitive schemas, infertility concerns, and sexual expectations. Assessment of depression, anxiety, stress, substance use and post-traumatic stress (and their medical treatments) should be carried out as part of the initial evaluation. Clinicians should attempt to ascertain whether the anxiety and/or depression is a consequence or a cause of the sexual complaint, and treatment should be administered accordingly. Cognitive distraction is a significant contributor to sexual response problems in men and women and is observed more consistently for genital arousal than for subjective arousal. Assessment of physical and mental illnesses that commonly occur in later life should be included as part of the initial evaluation in middle-aged and older persons presenting with sexual complaints. Menopausal status has an independent effect on reported changes in sex life and difficulties with intercourse. There is strong support for the use of psychological treatment for sexual desire and orgasm difficulties in women (but not in men). Combination therapies should be provided to men, whenever possible. CONCLUSION: Overall, research strongly supports the routine clinical investigation of psychological factors, partner-related factors, context, and life stressors. A biopsychosocial model to understand how these factors predispose to sexual dysfunction is recommended.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations600
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207