The Impact of Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Intimacy: A Multimethod Examination of Patients’ Sexual Lives and Associated Healthcare Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can negatively impact sexual well-being, and some patients desire healthcare for these issues. Research capturing the lived experiences of patients in these areas is lacking. The present study investigated the sexual well-being impacts of IBD (objective 1) and patients' experiences accessing support for these concerns in the healthcare system (objective 2) through multimethod analyses. METHODS: A total of 480 adults with IBD were recruited for an online survey study. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyze responses to 2 open-ended questions (ie, qualitative data; question 1, n = 326, question 2, n = 309). Frequency analyses and contingency tables were used to analyze quantitative data (n = 436). RESULTS: Thematic analysis (objective 1) generated 8 themes highlighting the negative impacts of IBD on patients' sexual/intimate lives (eg, sexual activity, intimate relationships) and the influence of broader psychosocial experiences (eg, self-perception, mental health) on patients' sexual well-being. Quantitative analyses (objective 2) indicated that 39.2% of participants wanted sexual health information from a healthcare provider, but only 5.7% of our sample reported both wanting and receiving this information. Thematic analysis generated 5 themes highlighting the lack of support and information available for sexuality concerns in IBD healthcare and detailed patients' perceived barriers to obtaining support in this area. CONCLUSIONS: IBD has myriad impacts on patients' sexual lives. However, patients who want healthcare in this area rarely receive satisfactory support.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".