It’s not all that bad: associations among pain characteristics and sexual well-being in people living with chronic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals experiencing chronic pain often report adverse effects on their sexual functioning. However, other important aspects of sexual well-being (SWB), such as sexual distress and sexual self-esteem, have received little attention. This is an important omission because a SWB involves more than just good sexual function. Similarly, past research has not examined how chronic pain characteristics affect the different aspects of SWB. AIM: The goal of this cross-sectional study was to examine the SWB of individuals living with chronic pain and to examine the extent to which SWB is associated with different chronic pain characteristics. METHODS: A total of 310 individuals (28.1% men, 70.6% women, 1.3% transgender men) with ages between 21 and 50 (M = 31.96, SD = 6.13) who were in a romantic relationship and with self-reported chronic pain for three months or longer completed an online survey. OUTCOMES: The following indicators of SWB were included in the study: frequency of genital sexual activity, sexual satisfaction, sexual self-esteem, sexual desire, sexual function, genital pain, and sexual distress. RESULTS: The results show that most individuals with chronic pain maintain an active and satisfying sexual life and feel positive about themselves as a sexual partner. Slightly more than a fourth reported experiencing at least one sexual functioning difficulty and almost three-fourths of them found those difficulties sexually distressing. A first canonical correlation showed that more negative pain characteristics were associated with poorer SWB. The second canonical correlation showed that greater perceived partner support can offset the negative relationship between pain and some aspects of SWB. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These findings show that individuals living with chronic pain can experience positive SWB. Furthermore, the buffering effect of partner support suggests it is important to involve romantic partners in interventions aimed at improving the SWB of people living with chronic pain. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: The study examined a large number of indicators of SWB using a sample of individuals with different types of chronic pain. Limitations include potential self-selection bias and a sample that was predominantly white and highly educated. CONCLUSIONS: The results paint a more positive picture of the SWB of individuals living with pain and show that individuals living with chronic pain can experience positive SWB. These findings can help for researchers, educators, and clinicians about how to conceptualize, understand, and improve the SWB of individuals living with chronic pain.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".