Longitudinal links between perinatal grief and sexual well-being for couples after pregnancy loss.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pregnancy loss disrupts couples' sexual well-being, which is crucial to health and relationship quality, yet it is unclear what predicts sexual well-being postloss. Symbolic interactionism theory and prior literature point to perinatal grief as one potential predictor. Thus, our objective was to examine how perinatal grief of either couple member relates longitudinally to both couple members' sexual well-being after a pregnancy loss. We conducted multilevel structural equation modeling assessing whether fluctuations in perinatal grief were associated with fluctuations in sexual well-being for oneself and a partner among 109 couples who experienced a pregnancy loss in the past 4 months and who completed four monthly surveys. We also tested whether those with the highest average perinatal grief had the lowest average sexual well-being. When either partner reported greater than typical perinatal grief, both couple members reported lower than typical sexual satisfaction and sexual desire, and higher than typical sexual function problems and sexual distress. Those with the highest average perinatal grief had the lowest average sexual satisfaction and highest average sexual function problems and sexual distress. Higher perinatal grief may be a risk factor for lower sexual well-being. Couples who grieve effectively postloss may better manage sexual challenges. Practitioners can screen couples for perinatal grief as they assess impacts to sexuality, refer them to grief resources to promote sexual well-being, and invite them to discuss how meanings around sex may have changed postloss. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".