What sexual well-being really means for older adults: a systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual well-being (SWB) is a significant and understudied element of older adults’ health and well-being, and quality of life. The goal of this systematic review is to identify the researched topics in this field and assess the quality of the research while minimizing bias through a peer-to-peer review process. We searched several databases, including the Cochrane Database, Psy-Redalyc, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus and Google Scholar, resulting in 181,278 references. Ultimately, 62 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. These studies involved over 46,500 individuals with ages ranging from 55 to 99, from twenty-one different countries. Our study identified a variety of variables under the concept umbrella of SWB, including sexual satisfaction, sexual health, sexual interest, sexual experiences and behaviors, sexual intimacy, expressions of love and attitudes toward sexuality in different countries. The studies reveal diverse perspectives on the determinants, expressions, and challenges associated with SWB in old age. Common themes such as the importance of sexual satisfaction, intimate relationships, and the rejection of a universal decline in sexual interest, challenge ageist stereotypes. The emergent concepts, including the linking of physical to emotional health, the impact of technology, the inclusion of LGBTQIA+, older couples and people now in their 80s and 90s underscore the multifaceted nature of SWB in later life. As societies continue to age, embracing a more inclusive and nuanced approach to research and interventions will be pivotal in enhancing the overall well-being for older individuals.
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 | 0.011 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".