Allison G Smith1, Shoshana H Bardach2,3, Justin M Barber2, Andrea Williams4, Elizabeth K Rhodus2, Kelly K Parsons2, Gregory A Jicha2,5. 1. Department of Family Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA. 2. Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA. 3. Graduate Center for Gerontology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. 5. Department of Neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
Abstract
Objectives: This study sought to explore changes in longitudinal cognitive status in relation to baseline measures of intimacy and sexuality in cognitively intact, married older adults. Methods: Baseline intimacy and sexuality survey data from 155, cognitively intact, married, older adults were collected using a novel survey instrument that explored the domains of: 1) romance with one's partner, 2) sexual satisfaction, 3) beliefs about sexuality, and 4) social support and emotional intimacy. These data were analyzed in relation to change in cognitive status over a 10-year follow-up period using binary logistic regression modeling. Exploratory factor analysis was used to assess the shared variance of survey items attributable to intimacy and sexuality without specification of an a priori hypothesis regarding the association of intimacy and sexuality with future change in cognitive status. Results: Over the 10-year study period, 33.5% (n = 52) of individuals developed cognitive impairment. Participants with greater sexual satisfaction scores at baseline were statistically less likely to convert from cognitively intact to mild cognitive impairment or dementia in the future (p = .01). The domains of romance with one's partner, beliefs about sexuality, and social support/emotional intimacy were not predictive of future longitudinal changes in cognitive status.Conclusions: Sexual satisfaction is associated with longitudinal cognitive outcomes in cognitively intact, married, older adults.Clinical implications: Clinicians should routinely assess for sexual satisfaction among older adults and refer to appropriate providers, such as couples or sex therapists, when appropriate.
Objectives: This study sought to explore changes in longitudinal cognitive status in relation to baseline measures of intimacy and sexuality in cognitively intact, married older adults. Methods: Baseline intimacy and sexuality survey data from 155, cognitively intact, married, older adults were collected using a novel survey instrument that explored the domains of: 1) romance with one's partner, 2) sexual satisfaction, 3) beliefs about sexuality, and 4) social support and emotional intimacy. These data were analyzed in relation to change in cognitive status over a 10-year follow-up period using binary logistic regression modeling. Exploratory factor analysis was used to assess the shared variance of survey items attributable to intimacy and sexuality without specification of an a priori hypothesis regarding the association of intimacy and sexuality with future change in cognitive status. Results: Over the 10-year study period, 33.5% (n = 52) of individuals developed cognitive impairment. Participants with greater sexual satisfaction scores at baseline were statistically less likely to convert from cognitively intact to mild cognitive impairment or dementia in the future (p = .01). The domains of romance with one's partner, beliefs about sexuality, and social support/emotional intimacy were not predictive of future longitudinal changes in cognitive status.Conclusions: Sexual satisfaction is associated with longitudinal cognitive outcomes in cognitively intact, married, older adults.Clinical implications: Clinicians should routinely assess for sexual satisfaction among older adults and refer to appropriate providers, such as couples or sex therapists, when appropriate.
Authors: Sean A P Clouston; Dylan M Smith; Soumyadeep Mukherjee; Yun Zhang; Wei Hou; Bruce G Link; Marcus Richards Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: B Winblad; K Palmer; M Kivipelto; V Jelic; L Fratiglioni; L-O Wahlund; A Nordberg; L Bäckman; M Albert; O Almkvist; H Arai; H Basun; K Blennow; M de Leon; C DeCarli; T Erkinjuntti; E Giacobini; C Graff; J Hardy; C Jack; A Jorm; K Ritchie; C van Duijn; P Visser; R C Petersen Journal: J Intern Med Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Steven D Shirk; Meghan B Mitchell; Lynn W Shaughnessy; Janet C Sherman; Joseph J Locascio; Sandra Weintraub; Alireza Atri Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 6.982