Associations Between Sexual Script Flexibility and Sexual Outcomes: An Investigation Among Breast Cancer Survivor Couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Breast cancer (BC) survivors often experience sexual concerns affecting their intimate relationships. Sexual script flexibility (SSF) refers to the ability to adapt one's sexual scripts in response to sexual problems and may have implications for sexual adjustment. We studied SSF and its links to sexual self-efficacy and sexual satisfaction in BC survivor couples. METHODS: One hundred-twenty female post-treatment BC survivors reporting sexual concerns and their spouses (98% male) participating in a couples' sexual health intervention trial completed baseline surveys assessing SSF, sexual self-efficacy, and sexual satisfaction. Analyses included paired t-tests comparing survivors and spouses on SSF, ANOVA's to assess effects of couple-level SSF on sexual self-efficacy and satisfaction, and Actor-Partner Interdependence (APIM) models using multilevel modeling with generalized least squares analysis to assess effects of survivors' and spouses' SSF on their own and their spouses' sexual self-efficacy and satisfaction. RESULTS: Survivors reported lower SSF and sexual self-efficacy than spouses (p's ≤ 0.001). Couples where both members reported above median SSF (23% of couples) were distinguished by greater sexual self-efficacy and sexual satisfaction. APIM results indicated that (1) the greater survivors' and spouses' own SSF, the greater their own sexual self-efficacy (p < 0.01); (2) the greater survivors' SSF, the greater their own sexual satisfaction (p < 0.001); and (3) the greater survivors' SSF, the greater their partners' sexual satisfaction (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Greater sexual script flexibility may benefit BC survivor couples coping with sexual concerns. Future studies should examine whether intervention-related changes in SSF lead to better sexual outcomes, with survivors' flexibility an especially promising target.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".