Understanding Sexual Dysfunctions in Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities from A Psychological Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This article delves into the complex world of sexual dysfunctions in individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID), a topic that has been relatively underexplored in the realm of psychological research. Intending to shed light on the unique challenges faced by this population, the article meticulously examines the barriers to effective communication, cognitive differences, and the social dynamics that impact both the experiences and treatment outcomes for individuals with ID. Methods: The study utilized a blend of empirical methods, including questionnaires, psychodiagnostic tests, and graphical representations of data, and was conducted among a substantial sample of 1450 individuals with ID in Kyiv, Ukraine. It offers a comprehensive overview of the sexual health landscape within this community. Results: The research findings highlight a notable prevalence of sexual dysfunctions among the ID population, exacerbated by a lack of accessible sexual education, the prevalence of unsafe sexual practices, and a high rate of self-reported sexual abuse. Conclusions: The article emphasizes the importance of a nuanced understanding and approach to sexual health care and education for individuals with ID. It calls for policies, practices, and further research that honor the dignity, autonomy, and sexual rights of individuals with ID, aiming to bridge the current gaps in care and understanding. By doing so, it contributes significantly to the discourse on sexual health in the ID population, offering valuable insights and directions for future work in this vital area of study.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".