Sexual difficulties in old age and Person-Centered Therapy: A qualitative study with older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Sexual well-being (SWB) of the older population can be significantly influenced by age (1) and sexual difficulties (2). Objectives Through qualitative research, this study focused on sexual themes that affect the SWB addressed by the older people in person-centered therapy. Methods Twenty-five older adults, aged between 65 and 82 years and residents on the community participated in this study. Results The results revealed eight main themes for these participants: Absence of a partner, family interference, dissatisfaction with the body, cleanliness and body care, problems in sexual function, physical violence, problems in sexual communication and fear of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. The most discussed themes were the absence of a partner, problems with sexual function and dissatisfaction with the body. Conclusions This study highlights the importance of exploring the sexual difficulties that the older population feels in relation to their SWB. 1.von Humboldt S et al. Sexual expression in old age: How older adults from different cultures express sexually? Sex Res Social Policy. 2020;1-15. 2.von Humboldt S et al. Are older adults satisfied with their sexuality? Outcomes from a cross-cultural study. Educ Gerontol. 2020;46:284-293. Disclosure No significant relationships.
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 | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".