Sexual well-being among partnered adults and couples over 60: a scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although society still holds age-related stereotypes dismissing the sexuality of aging individuals, older adults remain sexually active and find sexuality to be an important part of their quality of life. Primarily oriented toward a biomedical and dysfunctional lens, prior research neglected the subjective well-being of elderly individuals, especially partnered adults and couples aged 60 years or more. Shedding a more positive light on this area of life could promote older individuals' and couples' sexual well-being. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aimed to synthetize the studies including community samples of partnered adults or couples over 60 who reported on various indicators of subjective sexual well-being including sexual satisfaction, distress, and function using validated measures. METHODS: Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMAScR), the electronic literature search was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, Medline, and CINAHL for peer-reviewed journal articles published before July 2023. RESULTS: Results showed how relational variables such as relationship satisfaction and intimacy emerge as important correlates of older adults' sexual well-being. CONCLUSION: Avenues for future research arising from gaps in the studies identified thorough this scoping review, including the underrepresentation of sexual/gender diverse individuals and the use of single and/or non-validated items to assess sexual well-being, are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 it