MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417512324 · doi:10.3138/cjhs-2025-0023

Addressing impacts of communication and swallowing disabilities on sexuality and intimacy: Practices of speech-language pathologists

2025· article· en· W4417512324 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Francis B. Day, Ellen M. Hickey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualitySwallowingQuality of life (healthcare)Inclusion (mineral)Health professionalsReproductive health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Human SexualitySame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207