Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Lubricant use during sexual activity has numerous benefits, minimal harms, and can play a role in managing common concerns in primary care. However, navigating evidence-based conversations about lubricant use can be challenging since there is a lack of easily accessible and reliable information. As a result, physicians are often hesitant to discuss the topic and can only offer anecdotal advice. Objective To review literature on lubricants used during sexual activity to (1) inform the development of an inclusive and practical evidence-based tool for physicians to help incorporate patient-specific recommendations for lubricants into clinical practice, and (2) create accessible materials for patients. Methods We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature using the Arksey and O’Malley framework. Using relevant keywords, we searched two electronic databases, one search engine, and reference lists for articles published in 2003 and onward. Articles generated were manually reviewed for relevance with further inclusion criteria: (1) identifies patient populations most likely to benefit from using lubricant during sexual activity, (2) addresses benefits and drawbacks of different lubricant classes, or (3) describes ingredients in or properties of lubricants that may cause harm. All sexually active individuals were deemed eligible for inclusion in the study, with no restrictions placed on location, age, gender, or sexual orientation. Following the completion of our scoping review, we used an evidence-based approach to develop a clinical practice tool and patient handout. During their development and to validate our findings, family physicians, nurses, psychologists specializing in sexual concerns, and sexual health educators provided iterative review. Results 27 articles were deemed eligible for inclusion in our scoping review. Results showed lubricant use to be especially beneficial for patients who (1) experience dryness, pain, or sexual dysfunction during any type of sex, (2) are at a higher risk of STI transmission (by reducing condom breakage), or (3) want to reduce the risk of having an unplanned pregnancy (by reducing condom breakage). There are three main types of lubricant available: oil, water, and silicone-based. Oil-based lubricant is not recommended since it is incompatible with latex condoms and is more likely to irritate genital epithelium and negatively impact genital microbiota. When comparing silicone and water-based lubricant, silicone-based lubricant lasts longer but is more difficult to wash off. Silicone-based lubricant is not compatible with silicone-based sex toys, whereas water-based lubricant is compatible with all types of sex toys. Water-based lubricant is also more likely than silicone-based lubricant to contain potentially irritating ingredients and properties, such as glycerol, propylene glycol, parabens, or a high osmolality. For patients who are struggling with infertility, most lubricants should be avoided as they can negatively affect sperm motility and viability. Conclusions Numerous patients can benefit from lubricant use during sexual activity. In particular, silicone and water-based lubricant without harmful additives or properties are recommended. Our guide on lubricants will assist physicians in identifying patients who may benefit from using lubricant and incorporating patient-specific recommendations into clinical practice. This, in addition to our patient handout, will help to improve discussions between patients and healthcare providers regarding sexual well-being and lubricant use. Disclosure No.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".