Romantic Relationships in Young People with Long-Term Health Conditions: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Forming and maintaining romantic relationships is an important developmental task in adolescence and young adulthood. This scoping review seeks to explore how young people with long-term physical health conditions understand and experience romantic relationships. METHODS: Using Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework, a systematic search of five databases was conducted (PsychINFO, Cinahl, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science). Studies were eligible for inclusion in the review if they were published in peer-reviewed journals, used primary data collection methods, and adopted quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods approaches to study romantic relationships in 11-25 year olds with long-term physical health conditions. Using a data extraction form, data pertaining to demographic characteristics of young people with long-term physical health conditions and relationship engagement were extracted from eligible papers. RESULTS: Searches returned 4645 papers after duplicate removal, with a two-stage screening process resulting in 111 full-text papers being reviewed. Thirty-three eligible papers were included across a range of long-term physical health conditions. Findings identified that living with a long-term physical health condition impacted young people's perceptions and experiences of romantic relationships across the relationship lifespan, from envisaging future relationships, to forming relationships, and sustaining relationships. Issues around body confidence and self-esteem were identified as challenging in terms of perceptions and experiences of romantic relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate that young people wish to engage with romantic relationships, yet many report particular challenges associated with forming and sustaining relationships due to the constraints of their condition and treatment. Future research should consider nonheterosexual relationships.
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 | 0.013 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".