MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3085604038 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.08.011

A Comparison of the Sexual Well-Being of New Parents with Community Couples

2020· article· en· W3085604038 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioYork UniversitySaint Mary's UniversityIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNova Scotia Health Research Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyDistressSexual functionSexual desireChecklistClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyHuman sexualityGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Changes in sexual well-being are common for new mothers and their partners after the birth of a baby. However, most research has sampled mothers not couples, assessed only one aspect of sexual well-being, and has not included a control sample of couples. AIM: This study aimed to compare the sexual well-being (ie, sexual frequency, sexual satisfaction, sexual desire, sexual distress) of first-time mothers and their partners in the transition to parenthood (first 12-month postpartum) to community couples who are not actively in this transition. We also compared the sexual well-being within couples (eg, mothers to their partners). METHODS: Couples in the transition to parenthood (n = 99) completed measures of sexual satisfaction, sexual desire, sexual distress, and sexual frequency at 3, 6, and 12 months postpartum, and community couples (n = 104) completed the measures at a single time point. OUTCOMES: Measures included the following: (i) Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction Scale; (ii) Female Sexual Function Index and International Index of Erectile Function sexual desire subscale; (iii) Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised; and (iv) checklist of sexual behaviors. RESULTS: Compared with community controls, new parents reported lower sexual satisfaction, lower sexual desire, and higher sexual distress at all time-points; however, these group differences became less pronounced by 12 months postpartum. By 6 months postpartum, there was no difference in sexual frequency between postpartum couples and the control group. Mothers experienced persistently lower sexual desire relative to their partners throughout the 12 months postpartum. Between 39% and 59% of mothers reported clinically low sexual desire, and 47-57% reported significant sexual distress at all time points. There were no significant differences reported in sexual satisfaction, sexual desire, or sexual distress between women and their partners in the community sample. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should be aware that sexual well-being may be compromised in new parents, and some of these challenges are still present for new parents at 12 months postpartum. Findings can be used to educate new parents regarding their expectations about postpartum sexual well-being. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: The strengths of the present study are the dyadic approach, assessing multiple aspects of sexual well-being in new parents over time, and the comparison with a community sample. An important limitation is that the control sample was not followed up over time. CONCLUSION: Education regarding postpartum sexual well-being should be incorporated in routine perinatal and postnatal healthcare practices to support new parents in developing realistic expectations about changes during the transition to parenthood, potentially preventing undue distress. Schwenck GC, Dawson SJ, Muise A, et al. A Comparison of the Sexual Well-Being of New Parents With Community Couples. J Sex Med 2020;17:2156-2167.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it