Dyadic coping and sexual well‐being in couples seeking assisted reproductive technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective This study examined whether perceptions of the partner's dyadic coping (DC) and of how partners cope together (common DC) are associated with sexual well‐being in couples seeking assisted reproductive technology. Background Although infertility has been associated with significant sexual concerns, little is known about the relational processes underlying couples' sexual well‐being. Method A sample of 232 couples with medical infertility completed questionnaires assessing DC and sexual well‐being (infertility‐related sexual concerns, distress, and satisfaction). Results Individuals who perceived that their partner engaged in higher negative DC reported lower sexual well‐being (actor effects). Men who perceived that their partner engaged in higher positive DC reported higher sexual satisfaction, whereas women reported greater infertility‐related sexual concerns (actor effects). Perceptions of higher common DC were associated with higher sexual well‐being for men and women (actor effects). Women whose partners reported perceptions of higher common DC also reported fewer infertility‐related sexual concerns (partner effect). Analyses adjusted for relationship satisfaction. Conclusion These findings highlight the need for future longitudinal research to gain a better understanding of the associations between dyadic factors and infertile couples' sexual well‐being. Implications These results suggest that the interpersonal context surrounding infertile couples' sexual well‐being should be routinely discussed and could be facilitated by promoting greater common DC.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".