A Thematic Analysis of Couples’ Sexual Well-Being Following a Recent Pregnancy Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pregnancy loss has been linked to poorer mental and relationship well-being. Given that strong sexual well-being is associated with better mental and physical health, understanding sexual well-being following a recent pregnancy loss may contribute to education and treatment models. Yet, little research has examined the effects of pregnancy loss on both couple members’ sexual well-being. Accordingly, using Marks’ team-based method for inductive thematic analysis, this qualitative study examined three open-ended questions regarding how individuals’ (N = 255 individuals, across 133 couples) sexual well-being reportedly changed – positively and negatively – and was supported following a recent pregnancy loss (i.e. within 5 months). We also considered if the identified themes differed in frequency between women and gender-diverse individuals who were pregnant when the loss occurred, and men, women, and gender-diverse partners who were not pregnant. Across participants, we found three themes regarding positive changes (e.g. Relationship growth; A new meaning to sex), five themes related to negative changes (e.g. Decreased desire and frequency; Health and body changes), four themes pertaining to support factors (e.g. Communicating openly; Offering support and respecting readiness), and three themes reflecting: No positive changes, No negative changes, and Nothing done to support sexual well-being. Results of this study may guide psychoeducation to increase awareness of potential changes following pregnancy loss and encourage supportive behaviors to benefit couple members’ sexual well-being.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".