| Literature DB >> 35028806 |
Pedro Nobre1, Pedro J Rosa2,3, Priscila Vasconcelos4, Inês Tavares4, Joana Carvalho4, Ana Quinta-Gomes4, Catarina Moura4, Mariana Carrito4.
Abstract
Recent findings suggest that the current COVID-19 pandemic has a potential negative impact in several areas of life, including sexual health. However, less is known about the psychological dimensions that may work as vulnerability/protective factors for the development of sexual problems in the current pandemic. The current study used a longitudinal design to examine the role played by personality trait factors (neuroticism, extraversion) as well as psychosexual factors (sexual beliefs) in predicting sexual functioning and sexual distress across time during the current pandemic crisis. A total of 528 individuals (337 women) completed a web survey assessing sexual health indicators and psychological factors. The first wave was conducted during the confinement period in Portugal (N = 528) between May and June 2020 and the second four months later (N = 146), when strict confinement rules were over. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to examine the ability of psychological factors to predict sexual functioning and distress across time, while controlling for age and gender. Results indicated that sexual distress at time point 2 was lower than during confinement, and men had lower levels of sexual functioning post-confinement while no significant difference was observed for women. Moreover, higher levels of neuroticism and age-related beliefs significantly predicted lower sexual functioning as well as higher sexual distress, whereas lower levels of extraversion predicted lower sexual functioning after controlling for age and gender effects. Findings support the role of psychological vulnerability factors to predict sexual problems across time and may have important implications in the prevention and treatment of sexual dysfunctions.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic; Personality factors; Sexual beliefs; Sexual distress; Sexual functioning
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35028806 PMCID: PMC8757627 DOI: 10.1007/s10508-021-02209-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Sex Behav ISSN: 0004-0002
Sociodemographic Characteristics (N = 528)
| Men ( | Women ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | |
| Age | 41.9 (18–76) | 12.57 | 34.3 (18–73) | 10.48 |
| % | % | |||
| Exclusively heterosexual | 145 | 77.1 | 249 | 73.9 |
| Mostly heterosexual | 11 | 5.9 | 65 | 19.3 |
| Bisexual | 5 | 2.6 | 17 | 5.0 |
| Mostly gay/lesbian | 9 | 4.8 | 2 | .6 |
| Exclusively gay/lesbian | 18 | 9.6 | 4 | 1.2 |
| Single | 42 | 22.3 | 151 | 44.8 |
| Living together | 42 | 22.3 | 88 | 26.1 |
| Married | 85 | 45.2 | 78 | 23.1 |
| Divorced | 19 | 10.1 | 18 | 5.3 |
| Widowed | – | – | 2 | .6 |
| Student | 17 | 9.0 | 56 | 16.6 |
| Employed | 140 | 74.5 | 520 | 65.3 |
| Unemployed | 12 | 6.4 | 30 | 8.9 |
| Layoff | 12 | 6.4 | 30 | 8.9 |
| Retired | 7 | 3.7 | 1 | .3 |
| 4 years (1st cycle) | 1 | .5 | – | – |
| 6 years (2nd cycle) | 1 | .5 | – | – |
| 9 years (3rd cycle) | 3 | 1.6 | – | – |
| 12 years (high school) | 45 | 23.9 | 33 | 9.8 |
| Graduation (university degree) | 128 | 68.1 | 281 | 83.4 |
| PhD degree | 10 | 5.3 | 23 | 6.8 |
Means and SDs for predictor and outcome variables (N = 528)
| Variables | ||
|---|---|---|
| Neuroticism | 22.40 | 6.60 |
| Extraversion | 27.18 | 5.90 |
| Female sexual conservatism | 10.50 | 2.29 |
| Female age-related beliefs | 5.97 | 2.45 |
| Male sexual conservatism | 9.64 | 1.47 |
| Macho beliefs | 7.05 | 2.94 |
| FSFI (T1) | 29.20 | 4.49 |
| FSFI (T2) | 28.80 | 4.89 |
| IIEF (T1) | 64.70 | 8.50 |
| IIEF (T2) | 63.80 | 10.10 |
| Sexual distress (T1) | 11.60 | 9.78 |
| Sexual distress (T2) | 11.00 | 10.20 |
FSFI Female Sexual Function Inventory, IIEF International Index of Sexual Function
Pearson correlations for predictor and outcome variables (N = 528)
| Predictors | Outcomes at T1 | Outcomes at T2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual functioningª | Distress | Sexual functioningª | Distress | |
| Age | .001 | − .048 | .069 | − .003 |
| Neuroticism | − .327** | .330** | − .281** | .227** |
| Extraversion | .211** | − .166** | .056 | − .006 |
| Female sexual conservatism | − .202** | .178** | − .345** | .203* |
| Female age-related beliefs | − .240** | .275** | − .295** | .271** |
| Male sexual conservatism | − .147** | .164** | − .458** | .387** |
| Macho beliefs | − .037 | .100* | − .293** | .349** |
aIn order to be comparable, the scales of sexual functioning for men (IIEF) and women (FSFI) were normalized linearly in the interval [0,1]; *p < .05, **p < .01
Results of GEE models to the data (N = 528)
| Sexual functioning | Sexual distress | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.05 | 180.29(1) | < .001 | − 11.01 | 3.57(1) | .059 | |
| Age (control) | − 0.01 | 6.11(1) | .013 | 0.04 | 1.33(1) | .249 |
| Gendera | 0.05 | 0.12(1) | .734 | 9.21 | 9.21(1) | .254 |
| Neuroticism | − 0.01 | 24.21(1) | < .001 | 0.44 | 28.97(1) | < .001 |
| Extraversion | 0,01 | 8.07(1) | .005 | − 0.03 | 0.20(1) | .652 |
| Female sexual conservatism | − 0.01 | 2.81(1) | .093 | 0.34 | 0.91(1) | .340 |
| Female age-related beliefs | − 0.02 | 13.73(1) | < .001 | 0.87 | 12.23(1) | < .001 |
| Male sexual conservatism | 0.00 | 0.02(1) | .882 | 0.53 | 0.71(1) | .400 |
| “Macho” beliefs | 0.00 | 0.16(1) | .678 | − 0.27 | 1.21(1) | .270 |
| 0.01 | 0.59(1) | .443 | − 2.10 | 6.75(1) | .009 | |
| 0.00 | 0.50(1) | .479 | ||||
| Gender * Neuroticisma | 0.00 | 0.09(1) | .754 | − 0.10 | 0.56(1) | .545 |
| Gender * Extraversiona | 0.00 | 0.50(1) | .479 | − 0.17 | 1.43(1) | .233 |
| Gender * Female conservatisma | 0.01 | 0.40(1) | .535 | − 0.70 | 1.94(1) | .164 |
| Gender * Female age beliefsa | 0.02 | 3.37(1) | .053 | − 0.17 | 0.14(1) | .706 |
| Gender * Male conservatisma | − 0.02 | 2.60(1) | .106 | 0.50 | 0.37(1) | .542 |
| Gender * Macho beliefsa | 0.00 | 0.23(1) | .668 | 0.27 | 0.59(1) | .444 |
| Gender * momenta, b | − 0.08 | 4.24(1) | .026 | 2.05 | 1.56(1) | .211 |
| Scale parameter Φ | 0.28 | 82.77 | ||||
aWomen as reference category, b moment 1 as reference category
df degrees of freedom
Fig. 1Predicted marginal means of sexual functioning according to gender and time. Note Time 1 was collected between May and June 2020 and time 2 between September and October 2020
Fig. 2Predicted marginal means of sexual distress across time. Note Time 1 was collected between May and June 2020 and time 2 between September and October 2020