Sexual Quality of Life of Seniors Living in Long-Term Care Facilities: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Sexuality is a significant aspect of well-being throughout life. Unfortunately, numerous barriers hinder sexual quality of life (SQOL) of elderly residents in long-term care facilities. The goal of this review was to explore current knowledge on seniors' SQOL (issues and interventions), as well as existing practices aimed at supporting the intimacy and sexuality of elderly residents. Our first objective was to scope and synthesize current knowledge on barriers to SQOL, existing supporting interventions or strategies, and clinical practices pertaining to SQOL in long-term care facilities. Our second objective was to identify the most promising interventions that could be applied in a Québec context. Methods: Four databases were explored to gather scientific literature on the topic over the last 20 years, along with grey literature, and a consultation with relevant stakeholders was conducted during a forum involving 26 participants (seniors, caregivers, clinicians, managers, researchers, and ethics counselors) held in June 2022. Results: Sixty studies were identified, indicating limited evidence supporting best practices to improve the sexuality of elderly individuals. The forum highlighted promising interventions. Identified barriers include sociocultural stereotypes, lack of clear guidelines, and organizational constraints. Recommended interventions include promoting a culture open to residents' sexuality, community education, and creating suitable private spaces. Conclusions: Continued research would help to better support teams working in residential facilities who must assist elderly individuals with reduced autonomy, with the aim of enhancing intimacy and sexuality among this vulnerable population.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".