Approaching sexuality in aging: an integrative review / Abordagem da sexualidade no envelhecimento: uma revisão integrativa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: identificar na literatura evidências científicas que influenciam a abordagem da sexualidade na pessoa idosa pelos profissionais de saúde. Método: pesquisa de revisão integrativa, por meio da busca de artigos científicos nas bases MEDLINE e CINAHAL e nas Bibliotecas Virtuais/Repositórios Bibliográficos LILACS, Scielo e Science Direct com enfoque sobre profissionais de saúde e sexualidade em idosos. Resultados: foram selecionados 14 artigos que evidenciaram que a maioria dos profissionais de saúde possuem conhecimento limitado, atitudes variadas e não abordam o assunto proativamente. A ausência de conhecimento e treinamento no assunto, a falta de tempo nas consultas e o desconforto gerado pelo tema foram dificuldades relatadas. Conclusão: a maioria dos profissionais de saúde negligencia a conversa sobre sexualidade com os pacientes mais velhos. A mínima atenção ao assunto proporciona um ambiente embaraçoso tanto para os idosos quanto para os profissionais de saúde.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".