Aging and Sexual Health: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Patients in a Canadian Urban Academic Family Health Team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary care physicians are in a position to recognize sexuality as a core component of health. Data examining the sexual behaviours of Canadians over the age of 50 and the role of primary care in this domain is lacking. A cross-sectional survey was administered to patients over the age of 50, which assessed the importance of sexual activity, problems, and preferences in discussing sexual health with their primary care providers. A total of 39 per cent of patients indicated ongoing sexual activity and 52% of male participants reported current sexual activity compared with 25 per cent of females (p < 0.01). More males reported sexual activity as important than did females (69% vs. 45%, p < 0.01). Participants identifying sexual health concerns discussed physical dysfunctions more than emotional, social, or global health concerns (p < 0.01). More male participants discussed sexual health concerns with their family physician than did females (p < 0.01). The results of our study indicate that many individuals over the age of 50 continue to be sexually active, and that physical and non-physical concerns directly impact participation in sexual activity.
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 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".