MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210674591 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.09.009

Sexual Function and Satisfaction in Couples with Infertility: A Closer Look at the Role of Personal and Relational Characteristics

2021· article· en· W3210674591 on OpenAlexafffund
Sawsane El Amiri, Audrey Brassard, Natalie O. Rosen, Meghan A. Rossi, Noémie Beaulieu, Sophie Bergeron, Katherine Péloquin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsInfertilitySexual functionPsychologyFunction (biology)Social psychologyClinical psychologyPregnancyPsychoanalysisBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Research to date suggests that couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) are at a high risk of experiencing sexual difficulties. AIM: This dyadic cross-sectional study aimed to provide a better understanding of the infertility-specific personal (ie, emotional, mind-body) and relational stressors associated with the sexual desire, orgasm, arousal, and sexual satisfaction of infertile couples seeking ART. METHODS: The sample included 185 mixed-sex infertile couples seeking ART. Participants completed online the Fertility Quality of Life tool and either the Female Sexual Function Index or the International Index of Erectile Function. Data were analyzed using path analyses based on the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. OUTCOMES: Individuals' own and their partners' sexual function (desire, orgasm, arousal domains) and sexual satisfaction. RESULTS: For men and women, infertility-related emotional stressors were associated with their own and their partner's lower sexual desire. For women, experiencing greater infertility-related emotional stressors was also associated with their partner's lower sexual satisfaction. While experiencing greater infertility-related mind-body stressors was not associated with men and women's own sexual desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction, for women, it was associated with their partner's lower sexual arousal. Lastly, for men and women, infertility-related relational stressors were associated with their own lower sexual arousal, as well as with their own and their partner's lower sexual satisfaction. For women, experiencing greater relational stressors was also associated with their own lower sexual desire and orgasm. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Interventions addressing the emotional, mind-body, and relational spheres of infertile couples seeking ART may help facilitate improvements in sexual function and satisfaction and better serve their needs. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: This study included a large sample of couples. Our sample was heterogeneous with regards to couples' cause of infertility and treatment stage. The use of an infertility-related measure allowed us to better capture personal and relational stressors specific to couples seeking ART. Given the cross-sectional design of our study, causality between infertility-related stressors and sexual function and satisfaction cannot be inferred. Our sample included predominantly White, mixed-sex individuals with a high level of education, which may reduce the generalizability of our findings. CONCLUSION: Couples' subjective experience of infertility and treatment (personal and relational stressors) seems to be strongly associated with their sexual health, allowing us to identify potential targets of intervention with couples seeking ART. S.E. Amiri, A Brassard, N.O. Rosen, et al. Sexual Function and Satisfaction in Couples with Infertility: A Closer Look at the Role of Personal and Relational Characteristics. J Sex Med 2021;18:1984-1997.

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 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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207