Sexuality among older adults : a taboo subject in CLSC's? = la sexualité auprès des aînés : un subject tabou en CLSC?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study investigated what factors impact Home-care professionals' ability to effectively discuss and intervene with older adults on the topic of intimacy and sexuality, and to generate a theoretical model for methods in which professionals deal with the subject matter. In depth interviews with nine Home-care professionals (social workers, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, nurses, home-care workers, team coordinators) from a Montreal CLSC who regularly intervene among older adults and utilize the Multiclientele Autonomy Assessment form, documentary evidence, and grounded theory analysis were utilized. Interviews centered on the professionals' conceptions of their roles and experiences as health and social service providers with regards to sexuality in later life. A theoretical model was developed describing (a) Home-care professionals' discomfort in inquiring and/or discussing the topic of sexuality with older adults, (b) phenomena that arose from those causal conditions, (c) strategies for facilitating intervention on the topic with older adults, (d) the consequences of those strategies. Implications for future research and practice are addressed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".