Are Older Adults Sexually Well: A Comparative Qualitative Study in Portugal and Romania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: This study aims the perspectives of older adults on their sexual well-being. For this purpose, a qualitative research was carried out, which analyzes older adults’ perspectives on indicators of sexual well-being in Portugal and Romania. Methods: Forty seven older participants aged 65 to 91 years, were interviewed. Participants lived in the community. All the interviews went through content analysis. Results: Preliminary results of content analysis generated 5 themes for the Romanian sample: Supportive relationship (k = .92, p < .01); positive financial situation (k = .91, p < .01); good health (k = 94, p < .01); education (k = .88, p < .01); and family support (k = .89, p < .01); and five themes for the Portuguese sample: Supportive relationship (k = .91, p < .01); demonstration of love (k = .91, p < .01); sharing joint activities (k = 92, p < .01); positive attitude and good humor (k = .91, p < .01); and open communication (k = .99, p < .01); Conclusions: This study highlighted the perspectives of Portuguese and Romanian older adults concerning sexual well-being. For both samples, showing a supportive relationship with a partner was the more frequent theme. Keywords: Content analysis; cross-national; older adults; qualitative study; sexual well-being.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".