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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

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