Sexual well-being in old age: A systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We conducted a systematic review of the qualitative literature on the sexuality and sexual health of older adults. OBJECTIVES: The aim is to address which topics have been researched and the quality of research within this field. METHODS: All stages of this review were carried out peer-to-peer in order to guarantee minimized bias. The Cochrane Database, Psy-EBSCO, MEDLINE, Psy-Redalyc, Scielo, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched and 32 studies met inclusion criteria. The majority had not been reviewed in earlier review articles. A total of 95,478 references were screened and 27 studies were included in this review. The studies involved 3044 participants across seven countries, most being women (approximately 83%). RESULTS: We identified a wide variety of factors that can determine SWB of older adults, such as perceived health, sexual health, demonstrations of love; non-sexual joint activities; overall well-being and quality of life; partner support; positive self-image; being independent and active; the strength of spiritual beliefs, and patriarchal roles upheld by upbringings conveying that women’s role is to provide men with sexual pleasure. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological issues related to sampling procedures, such as purposive sampling through the older samples and limited generalisability due to the homogeneity of participants. Additionally, there was a widespread lack of non-heterosexual control groups. However, most studies used appropriate measures and acknowledged inherent limitations. There is a lack of research with the older population, those with significant health needs, those outside the Western countries, and those with additional characteristics associated with discrimination. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST: None Declared
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".