Unlocking a taboo topic: the sexuality of institutionalized men within a forensic psychiatric facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inpatients’ sexuality in forensic psychiatric facilities remains a neglected topic. Given these circumstances, it creates barriers that hinder inpatients’ ability to express their sexuality, leading to a poor integration of sexual concerns into inpatient treatments. Inpatients’ sexuality can influence recovery journeys negatively or positively, for example by affecting medication adherence due to sexual side effects, or through the positive effects of having romantic relationships. To better understand inpatients’ needs, this qualitative research explores inpatients’ sexuality in a forensic psychiatric facility. This study aims to describe how inpatients perceive and express their sexuality while also exploring the perceived positive impacts of sexual satisfaction, sexual well-being, and intimacy on their recovery. Nine men hospitalized in a high-security forensic facility took part in an individual interview. Thematic analysis was conducted. Themes, including sexual representations and perceived benefits of sexuality, were gathered from past, present, and future contexts. Findings reveal that inpatients adapt their sexual expression in the face of barriers. Participants, while specifying their sexual needs, indicated an interest in forming a relationship with an intimate partner, seeing potential benefits for themselves and their recovery. Results underscore the need to incorporate a positive form of sexuality in treatment plans considering its positive outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".