POLICY AND PRACTICES FOR SUPPORTING SEXUAL EXPRESSION AMONG OLDER NURSING HOME RESIDENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contrary to societal beliefs, older people living in nursing homes continue to have desires for, and interest in, being sexual (Frankowski & Clark, 2009). However, the right and need to engage in intimate relationships are often ignored in nursing homes, which err on the side of safety and prohibiting intimacy. This is due to the complexities of sexual expression and dementia, lack of training/education, staff attitudes, and the lack of adequate or any policies to guide staff (Villar et al., 2014). Recent studies have shown great need for policy development in sexual expression that balances a right to autonomy with protection from oneself and others, particularly in the context of dementia (American Medical Directors Association, 2013; Tarzia, Fetherstonhaugh, & Bauer, 2012). Within this presentation, we will examine sexual expression practices and policy from international perspectives, highlighting the need for flexible approaches to support sexual expression among older people in nursing home care. First, we will discuss the status quo of sexual expression policy among nursing homes in Australia, contrasting the findings with “best practice.” Implications for development and training will be discussed. Second, we will emphasize the importance of resident-informed sexual expression policy; taking into account resident rights and wishes along with administrators and laws/regulations. Data from two studies conducted in the US will be highlighted. Third, we will present a clinical perspective showing how a sexual expression policy was developed and is being implemented in a healthcare system in Canada. A description of policy development and illustration with case studies will be included.
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 | 0.051 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".