Intimacy for older adults in long-term care: a need, a right, a privilege-or a kind of care?

aged ethics rights sexuality/gender

Journal

Journal of medical ethics
ISSN: 1473-4257
Titre abrégé: J Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7513619

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
23 Jun 2021
Historique:
received: 15 12 2020
accepted: 26 05 2021
entrez: 24 6 2021
pubmed: 25 6 2021
medline: 25 6 2021
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

To investigate attitudes of staff, residents and family members in long-term care towards sex and intimacy among older adults, specifically the extent to which they conceptualise sex and intimacy as a need, a right, a privilege or as a component of overall well-being. The present study was a part of a two-arm mixed-methods cross-sectional study using a concurrent triangulation design. A validated survey tool was developed; 433 staff surveys were collected from 35 facilities across the country. Interviews were conducted with 75 staff, residents and family members. It was common for staff, residents and family members to talk about intimacy and sexuality in terms of rights and needs. As well as using the language of needs and rights, it was common for participants to use terms related to well-being, such as fun, happiness or being miserable. One participant in particular (a staff member) described receiving intimate touch as a 'kind of care'-a particularly useful way of framing the conversation. While staff, residents and family frequently used the familiar language of needs and rights to discuss access to intimate touch, they also used the language of well-being and care. Reframing the conversation in this way serves a useful purpose: it shifts the focus from simply meeting minimum obligations to a salutogenic approach-one that focuses on caring for the whole person in order to improve overall well-being and quality of life.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
To investigate attitudes of staff, residents and family members in long-term care towards sex and intimacy among older adults, specifically the extent to which they conceptualise sex and intimacy as a need, a right, a privilege or as a component of overall well-being.
METHODS METHODS
The present study was a part of a two-arm mixed-methods cross-sectional study using a concurrent triangulation design. A validated survey tool was developed; 433 staff surveys were collected from 35 facilities across the country. Interviews were conducted with 75 staff, residents and family members.
RESULTS RESULTS
It was common for staff, residents and family members to talk about intimacy and sexuality in terms of rights and needs. As well as using the language of needs and rights, it was common for participants to use terms related to well-being, such as fun, happiness or being miserable. One participant in particular (a staff member) described receiving intimate touch as a 'kind of care'-a particularly useful way of framing the conversation.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
While staff, residents and family frequently used the familiar language of needs and rights to discuss access to intimate touch, they also used the language of well-being and care. Reframing the conversation in this way serves a useful purpose: it shifts the focus from simply meeting minimum obligations to a salutogenic approach-one that focuses on caring for the whole person in order to improve overall well-being and quality of life.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34162736
pii: medethics-2020-107171
doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-107171
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: None declared.

Auteurs

Vanessa Schouten (V)

School of Humanities, Media and Communication, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand v.schouten@massey.ac.nz.

Mark Henrickson (M)

School of Social Work, Massey University-Albany Campus, Auckland, New Zealand.

Catherine M Cook (CM)

School of Clinical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.

Sandra McDonald (S)

Ngāti Whātua and Ngāti Wai, Kaipara, New Zealand.

Nilo Atefi (N)

School of Social Work, Massey University-Albany Campus, Auckland, New Zealand.

Classifications MeSH