Love (and) ageing well: A qualitative study of sexual health in the context of ageing well among women aged 50 and over
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The United Nations has declared 2021-2030 the 'Decade of Healthy Ageing' and identified the need to strengthen the evidence base on interpretations and determinants of healthy ageing to inform policy. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to interrogate a 'policy blind spot' and examine interpretations and experiences of sexuality and sexual health within the context of ageing well among women aged 50+. DESIGN: The qualitative study design was underpinned by an interpretivist epistemology. Research was guided by principles of feminist scholarship and located in an affirmative ageing framework. METHODS: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted between April-June 2019 with 21 English-speaking women aged 52-76. Women were recruited through community organizations in North West England. Transcripts were analysed using a framework approach to thematic analysis, applying an inductive approach to theme generation. RESULTS: Narratives encompassed six broad themes: reflections on 'ageing well'; age alone does not define sexuality and sexual health; interpretations of sexual health and sexuality; vulnerability and resistance in later-life sexual health; narratives of (in)visibility; and reimagining services to promote sexual health in later life. There was a dominant belief that sexual health represents a component of ageing well, despite a broad spectrum of sexual expression and health challenges. Sexual expression was diversely shaped by conflicting societal expectations within an evolving digitized environment. In clinical settings, however, sexual health discussions were often muted or framed from a disease-focussed lens. Women expressed a preference for holistic, person-centred sexual health provision from an orientation of wellness to support varied sexual expression, sensitive to wider health, life and relationship realities. CONCLUSION: This work strengthens calls to disentangle sexual health from disease-centred narratives and legitimize sexual health as part of the healthy ageing agenda.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".