MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379600288 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdad069

Partner responses to low desire among couples coping with male hypoactive sexual desire disorder and associations with sexual well-being

2023· article· en· W4379600288 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

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaDalhousie University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHypoactive sexual desire disorderSexual desirePsychologyDistressInterpersonal communicationPersonal distressClinical psychologyPartner effectsSexual dysfunctionSexual functionInterpersonal relationshipCoping (psychology)Developmental psychologyHuman sexualitySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) is characterized by persistently low desire and associated distress. Low desire is one of the most common sexual complaints among men and is associated with poor well-being. Interpersonal factors are key to understanding low desire, yet there are few dyadic studies of HSDD in men. Previous work on genito-pelvic pain and low desire in women has established that greater facilitative (eg, affectionate) partner responses are associated with greater sexual satisfaction and function and that more negative (eg, critical) or solicitous (eg, sympathetic, avoidant) partner responses are associated with lower sexual satisfaction and function. Examining how partner responses are associated with adjustment to HSDD may shed light on the interpersonal dynamics of this understudied sexual dysfunction. AIM: In a cross-sectional study, we examined whether partner responses to low desire in men were associated with sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and sexual distress for both members of the couple. METHODS: Men with HSDD and their partners (N = 67 couples) completed measures of facilitative, negative, and avoidant partner responses to men's low sexual desire-as perceived by the man with HSDD and self-reported by their partner-and sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and sexual distress. Data were analyzed using multilevel modeling guided by the actor-partner interdependence model. OUTCOMES: Outcomes included the partner-focused subscale of the Sexual Desire Inventory-2, Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction, and Sexual Distress Scale-Revised. RESULTS: When men with HSDD perceived more facilitative partner responses to their low desire, they and their partners reported greater sexual satisfaction. When men with HSDD perceived and their partners self-reported more negative partner responses, they each reported lower sexual satisfaction. In addition, when men with HSDD perceived more avoidant partner responses, their partners reported greater sexual distress. Partner responses were not associated with sexual desire for either member of the couple. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Findings support the importance of the interpersonal context for HSDD in men and suggest potential future targets of treatment when working with affected couples. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study is one of the only dyadic studies of HSDD in men, as assessed via clinical interview or self-report symptoms reviewed by the clinical team. Despite our best efforts to recruit this sample over 6 years, the small size limited power to detect all predicted effects. CONCLUSION: More facilitative and fewer negative or avoidant partner responses to low desire are associated with greater sexual well-being in couples coping with HSDD.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.265 · 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