Does anxiety sensitivity interfere with sexual well-being? Evidence from a community sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anxiety sensitivity has been identified as a transdiagnostic risk factor with implications for problems in sexual well-being; those with higher anxiety sensitivity tend to experience poorer sexual well-being. The current study extended work examining links between anxiety sensitivity and sexual well-being to a community sample while taking into account broader psychological well-being. Participants were 484 men, women, and gender diverse adults (Mage = 31.70 years; SD = 11.26) who had engaged in partnered sexual activity at least once in their lifetime. We assessed sexual well-being broadly by including measures of sexual function, cognitive-affective responses (i.e. sexual satisfaction, sexual self-esteem, sexual distress), and sexual behavior (i.e. frequency of sexual activity, avoidance of sex). Multiple regression analyses showed that anxiety sensitivity is linked to poorer sexual well-being among men and women. Associations between anxiety sensitivity and sexual pain, sexual satisfaction (for women), and sexual distress persisted over and above the contributions of psychological well-being. Few gender effects were noted, suggesting that these experiences are common to all. Findings have clinical implications relevant to those working with individuals with anxiety or sexual problems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".