BRINGING SEXY BACK: EXPLORING INTIMACY AND SEXUALITY AMONG OLDER RESIDENTS IN LONG-TERM CARE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continued intimate and/or sexual expression in later life improves health and well-being. However, older adults may not experience the many health-promoting and disease-preventing benefits of intimacy/sexuality as a result of a complex series of biopsychosocial and behavioural factors. Further, older adults who live in long-term care (LTC) settings often have additional barriers related to intimacy/sexuality, but relatively little is known on this topic. This study explored first-hand perspectives of 10 older residents of a LTC facility in Nova Scotia, Canada on how intimacy and sexuality are defined, perceived, and experienced in their present living environment. Data collection consisted of a two-phase qualitative interview process. First, a life review approach was used to establish rapport with each resident and to situate their perspectives on intimacy/sexuality in the context of their life histories. Second, semi-structured interviews were conducted. Thematic constant comparison analysis was used to extract central themes from these data. Results demonstrated that: a) LTC residents have diverse definitions of intimacy/sexuality, and that the language choices used to discuss these terms are significant; b) while age may be perceived as a factor for continued intimate/sexual expression, it is not the determining factor; c) LTC residents experience and engage in intimacy/sexuality through many forms, and these experiences vary across individuals and over time. Ultimately, findings emphasize the importance of giving voice to older residents’ perspectives of intimacy/sexuality, and the value of using these voices to inform future relevant aging-related research, policies, and practices in LTC settings.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".