What Factors are Associated with Sexual Satisfaction, Distress, and Function in Couples? A Systematic Scoping Review of Dyadic Diary Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasingly common dyadic diary method uniquely captures how fluctuations in the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of each member of a couple contribute to sexual outcomes within relationships. Dyadic diary methods assess these processes close in time to when they occur in a natural setting, and permit examination of within-person fluctuations in variables of interest while accounting for relational interdependence. The aim of this systematic scoping review was to assess the contribution of dyadic diary studies to understanding specific sexual outcomes in committed relationships. We examined factors associated with three key outcomes - daily sexual satisfaction, sexual distress, and sexual function. Fifty-seven records reporting on 3,793 couples were included. All factors were reported on by each member of the couple, separately. We identified personal (individual's experiences or behaviors such as mood), relationship-focused (shared experiences of both partners such as conflict), and partner-focused (partner's experiences or behaviors such as responsiveness) factors. When individuals reported a change in their personal, relationship-, or partner-focused experience relative to their average across days, there were implications for their own and, in some cases, their partners' sexual outcomes that day. We found that dyadic diary studies are especially useful when the associated factors under investigation focused on specific relationship events (e.g. sexual activity, conflict) that are sensitive to contextual factors (e.g. mood) and may be experienced differently for each partner. However, diary methods are resource-intensive and may not be required when researchers are primarily interested in perceived partner behaviors. Our results suggest it may be valuable for theorists, researchers, and clinicians to consider the dynamic nature of day-to-day fluctuations in couples' lives to better understand and promote sexual satisfaction and sexual function, and reduce sexual distress, in the context of partnered relationships.
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 | 0.024 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".