Associations between Childhood Sexual Abuse and Sexual Well-being in Adulthood: A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child sexual abuse (CSA) tends to occur in close relationships and involves sexual acts and betrayal. Thus, it is thought to affect sexual well-being in adulthood more so than any other form of childhood trauma. Research conducted over the last decade resulted in an impressive diversity of evidence reporting that CSA may be related to greater sexual dysfunction and lower sexual satisfaction as an adult, but also to higher levels of sexual compulsivity and sexual risk behaviors. Some studies also found no significant association between CSA and adult sexual well-being. Faced with these mixed results, understanding how CSA may affect sexual well-being in adulthood remains challenging for clinicians and researchers. The aim of this comprehensive literature review was to synthesize the empirical studies published in the last five years documenting the associations between CSA and several indicators of sexual well-being in adults excluding risky sexual behaviors. The literature search yielded 18 eligible studies which mainly examined five domains of sexual outcomes of CSA: sexual function, sexual satisfaction, sex-related cognitions, sexual behaviors and affective components of sexuality. Findings suggest that CSA is not unanimously related to all domains of sexual well-being, but rather, that associations are largely a function of the presence of other comorbidities or nature of the sample. Moreover, men are still significantly underrepresented in reviewed studies. Implications of the findings will be discussed in light of their relevance for clinicians and for researchers about gaps in current literature need to be filled.
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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".