MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292737267 · doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2022.04.002

Child Maltreatment and Couples’ Sexual Health: A Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4292737267 on OpenAlexafffund
Sophie Bergeron, Noémie Bigras, Marie‐Pier Vaillancourt‐Morel

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Medicine Reviews · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité de Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
KeywordsPsycINFOCINAHLNeglectSexual abuseContext (archaeology)Clinical psychologyChild sexual abuseMedicineMEDLINEPsychological abusePopulationHuman sexualityPhysical abuseChild abusePsychologyPoison controlPsychiatryInjury preventionPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Childhood maltreatment (CM) is an interpersonal trauma reported by 35% to 40% of individuals in population-based studies in North America. It refers to physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, as well as physical and emotional neglect. Although there is a growing body of cross-sectional work focusing on associations between CM and sexual health, most studies have ignored the broader relationship context in which sexuality is experienced. OBJECTIVES: The current review sought to systematically and critically appraise all studies that reported on the association between CM and couples' sexual health, to inform clinical care and recommendations for research. METHODS: The electronic literature search was conducted using PubMed, PsycNET (PsycINFO, PsychArticles), Medline, CINAHL, and Eric for peer-reviewed journal articles published before September 2021. Eligible studies had to report on the association between any form of CM and any dimension of sexual health in couples or individuals in a romantic relationship. RESULTS: In total, 13 studies (18 articles) were included in this systematic review: 4 studies pertained to clinical couples and 9, to community couples; 2 studies used a longitudinal design and 11, a cross-sectional design; 3 studies examined CM as a whole, 2 studies examined multiple subtypes of CM separately, 1 study examined both CM as a whole and its subtypes separately, whereas the other 7 studies focused on childhood sexual abuse. Results indicated that studies using valid measures of sexual health outcomes found significant associations between CM and worse outcomes - including declines over time - in both clinical and community samples. Mediators and moderators of these associations were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide preliminary support for the role of CM in couples' sexual health. There is a need for future longitudinal studies involving both members of the couple, valid and multidimensional measures of sexual health, and potential mediators and moderators. Bergeron S, Bigras N, Vaillancourt-Morel M-P. Child Maltreatment and Couples' Sexual Health: A Systematic Review. Sex Med Rev 2022;10:567-582.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0120.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual Medicine ReviewsSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207