Bio-Psycho-Social Factors Affecting Women's Sexual Function during Pregnancy: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexual function is a multidimensional phenomenon which is affected by many biological, psychological and social factors. Since sexual problems can have many effects on other aspects of the personal and social lives, and on the other hand sexual function can go through changes during pregnancy, this study has been designed in order to review the factors affecting women's sexual function during pregnancy. METHODS: A comprehensive search using key words: pregnancy, childbirth, sexual function and sexual disorder were conducted in the web search engines Google and Google Scholar, as well as the databases of PubMed, ProQuest, and Cochrane library. Science Direct, Scientific Information Database and Magiran. A total of 29 relevant international and Iranian literature sources meeting the inclusion criteria were included. RESULTS: The results led to organizing the findings related to sexual function during pregnancy in three categories, namely biological factors, psychological factors and social factors. CONCLUSION: It is suggested that evaluation of sexual health during pregnancy must become a main pivot of routine prenatal care. In this way, it is necessary health care providers to be aware of a number of risk factors that may contribute to sexual dysfunction in pregnant women.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".