What to Expect When You’re Expecting: Perinatal Sexual Education Is Linked with Couples’ Sexual Well-Being in Pregnancy and the Postpartum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Up to 88% of expectant and new parents report problems with their sexual well-being, yet less than 30% of individuals receive information about potential sexual problems from health-care professionals. Lack of information may contribute to difficulty adjusting to sexual challenges, and in turn, to poorer sexual well-being. The current study examined the following: 1) the amount of perinatal sexual health information individuals receive/access; 2) gaps between desired and received information; 3) barriers to accessing information; and 4) links between the quantity of information received/accessed and sexual well-being outcomes in one sample of pregnant couples (N = 102) and another sample of couples in the postpartum (N = 102). Results revealed that most participants reported receiving/accessing little-to-no sexual health information, despite most participants wanting to receive a variety of information related to their perinatal sexuality. On average, expectant and new parents were indifferent regarding how easy/comfortable they felt discussing their sexuality with health-care professionals. Overall, when gestational parents received/accessed more pregnancy-related sexual health information and when either parent received/accessed more postpartum-related sexual health information, both members of the couples reported greater sexual well-being. Access to information might not only address couples’ needs and concerns but may also bolster sexual well-being during a vulnerable period.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".