Comparison of Good-Enough Sex Model (GESM) and PERMA Counseling Models on Women’s Sexual Function and Quality of Life: A Randomized Parallel Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychological counseling interventions address sexual and reproductive health challenges by equipping couples with stress management and relationship skills. This study compared the effectiveness of sexual health counseling based on the Good-Enough Sex Model (GESM) and the PERMA model in improving women’s sexual function and quality of sexual life. In a randomized parallel clinical trial, 82 women from selected health centers in Bandar Abbas, Iran, were assigned to Group A (GESM) or Group B (PERMA). Group A received four 90-minute counseling sessions, and Group B received five. Data collection tools included a demographic questionnaire, the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), and the Sexual Quality of Life-Female (SQOL-F). Data were analyzed using SPSS 26. The results showed no significant differences in sexual function or sexual quality of life scores between groups at baseline (p > 0.05). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements immediately post-intervention and 4-week follow-up after intervention (p < 0.05). Repeated measures ANOVA indicated no statistically significant differences between the groups over time (p = 0.706 and p = 0.484 for FSFI and SQOL-F, respectively). The GESM model was more efficient, requiring fewer sessions and less time, while focusing on fostering realistic perceptions of sexual relationships. In contrast, the PERMA approach emphasized enhancing sexual well-being through positive psychological elements.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".