Are Older Adults Well Sexually? Sexual Well-Being among a Cross-National Sample of Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To analyze sexual well-being (SWB) in older adults’ perspective, to investigate the latent constructs that can work as major determinants in SWB and to examine the potential explanatory mechanisms of a SWB overall model, in an older cross-national sample. Method: Measures were completed, using a variety of appropriate methods, including demographics and interviews. Complete data were available for 163 older adults aged between 65-97 years (M=74.2; SD = 4.743). Data were subjected to content analysis. Representation of the associations and latent constructs were analyzed by a Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA). Results: The most prevalent response of the interviewed participants for SWB was “affection and care” (11.0%). A three-dimension model formed by “intimacy and well-being”, “care, eroticism and desire”, and “sexual activity and health” was presented as a best-fit solution for German older adults. SWB for Portuguese older adults were explained by a three-factor model: “intimacy, health and desire”, “affection and well-being” and “sexual activity”. Conclusions: The outcomes presented in this paper emphasized the need to explore the indicators of SWB among older adults and the under-developed potential of a SWB overall model for the older population.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".