Sexual Distress and Sexual Problems During Pregnancy: Associations with Sexual and Relationship Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sexual problems are common during pregnancy, but the proportion of pregnant women who experience sexual distress is unknown. In non-pregnant samples, sexual distress is associated with lower sexual and relationship satisfaction. AIM: To identify the proportion of women experiencing sexual distress during pregnancy and to compare the sexual and relationship satisfaction of women who report sexual distress during pregnancy with that of women without distress. METHODS: Two-hundred sixty-one pregnant women completed a cross-sectional online survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women completed validated measurements of sexual functioning (Female Sexual Function Index; score < 26.55 indicates a sexual problem), sexual distress (Female Sexual Distress Scale; score ≥ 15 indicates clinically significant distress), sexual satisfaction (Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction), and relationship satisfaction (Couples Satisfaction Index). RESULTS: Overall, 42% of women met the clinical cutoff for sexual distress. Of sexually active women (n = 230), 26% reported concurrent sexual problems and distress and 14% reported sexual distress in the absence of sexual problems. Sexual distress and/or problems in sexual functioning were linked to lower sexual and relationship satisfaction compared with pregnant women with lower sexual distress and fewer sexual problems. CONCLUSION: Sexual distress is common during pregnancy and associated with lower sexual and relationship satisfaction. Health care providers should ask pregnant women about feelings of sexual distress. Identifying pregnant women who experience sexual distress and referring them to appropriate resources could help minimize sexual and relationship problems during pregnancy. Vannier SA, Rosen NO. Sexual Distress and Sexual Problems During Pregnancy: Associations With Sexual and Relationship Satisfaction. J Sex Med 2017;14:387-395.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".