Addressing impacts of communication and swallowing disabilities on sexuality and intimacy: Practices of speech-language pathologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communication and swallowing are important in sexuality and intimacy. People experiencing disabilities related to communication or swallowing (e.g., individuals with aphasia, dementia, voice disorders, swallowing disorders, as well as Augmentative-Alternative Communication users) face challenges with sexuality and intimacy. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are health professionals who can address the impacts of communication and swallowing disabilities on sexuality and intimacy. This study aims to investigate if and how SLPs in Canada are currently addressing these issues in practice. A survey with a mix of 26 closed- and 4 open-ended questions was distributed to 1,149 SLPs. Of the respondents who met the inclusion criteria, 56 completed the survey. The survey results show that nearly two thirds of SLPs in Canada who responded are addressing aspects of sexuality and intimacy to some extent, most commonly impacts on gender roles and dating. However, most SLPs wait for the patient/client to initiate a discussion about this area, and most do not have a specific strategy to do so. These findings are largely consistent with research findings in other health care fields (e.g., nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy). Future research should address the limitations of this study and investigate the impacts on clients’ health and quality of life when SLPs address sexuality and intimacy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".