Mindfulness and daily sexual function: a dyadic diary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Difficulties with sexual function are common with implications for couples' psychological and relationship well-being. Sexual mindfulness (ie, non-judgmental present-moment awareness during sexual activity) has been positively linked to sexual function in cross-sectional studies, but associations in the context of couples' daily lives are lacking. AIM: The aim of this study was to determine if higher levels of baseline sexual mindfulness predict one's own and one's partner's daily sexual function. METHODS: In a dyadic daily diary study, an inclusive sample of 141 couples completed a measure of sexual mindfulness at baseline and reported on their sexual function daily, on days of sexual activity, for 28 days. OUTCOMES: Daily sexual function was assessed with the Monash Sexual Satisfaction Questionnaire. RESULTS: Higher sexual mindfulness at baseline was associated with one's own, but not one's partner's, higher daily sexual function. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Targeting sexual mindfulness in sex therapy may promote an individual's own daily sexual function. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: This study employed a daily diary assessment of sexual function, which reduces recall biases and promotes ecological validity. We were limited by not having a daily measure of sexual mindfulness, rather we focused on a trait-like assessment of sexual mindfulness. CONCLUSION: Sexual mindfulness may support present-moment awareness in day-to-day sexual interactions, thus promoting daily sexual function. This may be largely an individual process, as there were no partner effects, although it is relevant that higher sexual mindfulness was not associated with drawbacks for partner sexual function. These findings provide empirical support for mindfulness therapies for sexual function.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".