What should we be studying? Research priorities according to women and gender-diverse individuals with sexual interest/arousal disorder and their partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexual interest/arousal disorder (SIAD) is one of the most common sexual problems for women. In clinical research, there are often misalignments between the research priorities of patients and researchers, which can negatively impact care, and gender-diverse individuals are often excluded from research. Inclusion of patient perspectives when establishing research priorities may help to reduce these gaps; however, the research priorities of couples coping with SIAD remain unclear. AIM: Identify the research priorities of women and gender-diverse individuals with SIAD and their partners. METHODS: In an online survey, couples coping with SIAD provided consent and responded to an open-ended question asking them to list the top 3 things they think are important for researchers to focus on related to couples coping with low sexual desire. A team-based content analysis was conducted to identify themes and their frequency of endorsement. OUTCOMES: An author-developed open-ended question. RESULTS: Analysis of 1279 responses (n = 667 from women and gender-diverse individuals with SIAD, n = 612 from partners) resulted in our identification of 6 main themes: general causes, general treatment and coping, biophysiological, relationship, psychological, and environmental/contextual. Additionally, we identified 4 sub-themes within each of the latter 4 main themes: general, cause, treatment, and impact. For women and gender-diverse individuals with SIAD, their partners, and specifically gender-diverse participants, the 3 most endorsed themes were psychological general factors (24.3%, 21.2%, 24.3%; eg, stress and the link between SIAD and anxiety), relationship general factors (15.7%, 13.2%, 18.6%; eg, relationship length and communication on sexual desire), and biophysiological general factors (12.3%, 12.4%, 14.3%; eg, research on medications and hormones). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Clinical researchers should consider the research priorities of couples coping with SIAD to ensure their work aligns with the needs of the affected population. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study is the first to identify the research priorities of both women and gender-diverse individuals with SIAD and their partners. Most participants identified as heterosexual, North American, and of middle to high socioeconomic status; results may not generalize. Responses were sometimes brief and/or vague; interpretation of these responses was therefore limited and may have required more contextual information. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that women and gender-diverse individuals with SIAD, their partners, and gender-diverse participants have similar research priorities that are consistent with a biopsychosocial approach to research. Heterogeneity of responses across themes supports a multidisciplinary, patient-oriented approach to SIAD research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".