A qualitative study on perceived sexual intimacy and mental health in later life during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic may affect sexual intimacy and have implications for overall sexual well-being. Objectives This study comprised two main objectives: 1) To explore the influence of COVID-19 pandemic on older couples’ sexual intimacy; and 2) To assess how older couples’ sexual intimacy during the COVID-19 pandemic influences mental health. Methods The sample of this qualitative study consisted of 391 older participants (between 65 and 87 years of age). Results For the first objective, semi-structured interview data yielded five main themes: (1) Less sexual satisfaction (68%); (2) Less sexual desire (67%); (3) Stronger affective relationships (34%); (4) Fear of contracting physical illness (29%); and (5) Less attractiveness (23%). Three main themes concerning mental health were reported by participants: (1) Less anxiety and distress (78%); (2) Greater attention to negative emotional states (55%); and (3) Less emotional outbursts (41%). Conclusions The pandemic affected older adults’ sexual intimacy, mostly negatively. Less sexual satisfaction and desire were felt by these older couples. Conversely, stronger affective relationships were reported. In spite of these mostly negative influences, existing sexual intimacy was mostly linked to less perceived anxiety and distress, greater attention to negative emotional states, and less emotional outbursts. Sexual intimacy during COVID-19 has received little attention; however, these results highlight its positive contribution to mental health and therefore a relevant approach to this topic should be taken, especially in later life. Disclosure of Interest None Declared
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".