Dementia and sexuality in long-term care: Incompatible bedfellows?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the recognized benefits of sexual expression and its importance in the lives of people living with dementia, research demonstrates that there are multiple barriers to its positive expression (e.g., expression that is pleasurable and free of coercion, discrimination, and violence) in RLTC homes. These barriers constitute a form of discrimination based on age and ability, and violate the rights of persons living with dementia to dignity, autonomy, and participation in everyday life and society. Drawing on a human rights approach to dementia and sexual expression, we explored the experiences of diverse professionals, family members, and persons living with dementia with explicit attention to the ways in which macro-level dynamics are influencing the support, or lack thereof, for sexual expression at the micro level. Focus groups and in-depth interviews were conducted with 27 participants, and the collected data were analyzed thematically. While all participants acknowledged that intimacy and sexual expression of persons living with dementia should be supported, rarely is such expression supported in practice. Micro-level factors included negative attitudes of professionals toward sexual expression by persons living with dementia, their discomfort with facilitating intimacy and sexual expression in the context of their professional roles, their anxieties regarding potential negative reactions from family members, and concerns about sanctions for failing to prevent abuse. In our analysis, we importantly trace these micro-level factors to macro-level factors. The latter include the cultural stigma associated with dementia, ageism, ableism, and erotophobia, all of which are reproduced in, and reinforced by, professionals' education, as well as legal and professional standards that exclusively focus on managing and safeguarding residents from abuse. Our analysis demonstrates a complexity that has enormous potential to inform future research that is critically needed for the development of educational initiatives and to promote policy changes in this area.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".