SUPPORTING SAFE AND HEALTHY SEXUAL EXPRESSION IN LONG-TERM CARE: A REVIEW OF CANADIAN RESOURCES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Little is known about what educational resources are available to practitioners in Canada for supporting the safe and healthy sexual expressions of persons living with dementia in long-term care (LTC). To address this gap, we conducted a critical review of publicly available online resources in Canada. Our objectives were to identify existing resources, describe key content areas and modalities, and assess strengths and weaknesses. To find resources, we conducted a systematic Google search, targeted websites searches, and contacted experts. Resources were included if they were in English, publicly accessible (e.g., not behind a paywall), focused on support of sexual expression of persons living with dementia in LTC, and informed action at the micro level of practice and/or meso level of organizational policy. We identified 9 resources, the majority of which were text-based and aimed at supporting staff or organizations in developing policies or practices regarding assessment and intervention in non-consensual sexual behavior. Guidance on consent was narrowly focused on bioethical principles, often neglecting fluctuating capacity, assent, and the role of substitute decision-makers. Although some acknowledged that healthy sexual expression in the context of dementia should be supported, the focus was primarily on support of non-erotic intimacy (e.g., hugging vs. stroking/kissing). We also found stigmatizing language (e.g., “demented”), and cursory attention to sexual and gender diversity, and ethnically and culturally diverse content. Although the available resources provide an important foundation, there is a pressing need to develop additional resources to better support sexual expression for persons living with dementia in LTC.
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 | 0.017 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.047 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".