Couples’ experiences with sexuality after spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore sexuality after spinal cord injury (SCI) from the perspectives of individuals with SCI and their romantic partners. METHODS: = 16). Semi-structured dyadic and individual interviews were conducted, discussions surrounding sexuality and intimacy were extracted, and a qualitative description of the interview data was performed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three major themes were identified: the changing definition of sex; emotions; and practical support. Couples' conversations around the changing definition of sex after SCI addressed the taboo topic of sexuality and the importance of communication between couples, peers, and healthcare providers. Emotions included fears of losing intimacy, embarrassment in managing bladder and bowel interference, and acceptance in balancing being a romantic partner and a caregiver. Finally, couples reported challenges accessing practical support including medical interventions and sexual health nurses, but saw value in peer mentorship programs. CONCLUSION: Couples explored a changing definition of sex following SCI that was complicated by the taboo nature of discussing sexuality, experienced a range of emotions throughout the recovery process, and had difficulties navigating the healthcare system for appropriate support.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONHealthcare professionals should promote discussion and provide support for sexuality following SCI, but during initial rehabilitation may be too early.Healthcare providers should prepare people with SCI and their partners for the inevitable trial-and-error process involved in sexual rehabilitation.Rehabilitation professionals could direct couples to SCI peer mentorship programs to help normalize the experiences and emotions of sexual rehabilitation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".