Changes in Intimacy and Sexuality During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Analysis of Data from a Survey on Partnered Individuals in Eight European Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This qualitative study explores experiences of intimacy and sexuality during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic of 3357 participants from Croatia, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Portugal, Sweden, and Turkey. Data were collected through open-ended questions within a survey on sexuality during the pandemic. Based on a reflexive thematic analysis three themes occurred. The first theme No change was described by 41% when summarizing their sex life during the pandemic. The second theme Positive change was experienced by 25%, and the third theme Negative change by 21%. An overarching theme then emerged as: “Still the same trajectories, but the pandemic could be a catalyst for improved or worsened sex- life.” For those intimate partnered individuals who already had problems with intimacy and sexuality before the COVID-19 pandemic it seemed to remain the same or deteriorated throughout the pandemic. For those with positive experiences of intimacy and sexuality before the COVID-19 pandemic it remained the same or improved throughout the pandemic. These findings are relevant for researchers and clinicians in developing preventive and supportive interventions in the context of crisis and social isolation.
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 | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".