RESUMEN
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: 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: 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: 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.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There is an international trend for frail older adults to move to residential care homes, rather than ageing at home. Residential facilities typically espouse a person-centred philosophy, yet evidence points to restrictive policies and surveillance resulting in increased loneliness and diminished opportunities for intimacy and sexual expression. Residents may experience what has been termed social death, rather than perceive they are related to by others as socially alive. AIM: To consider how the loss of intimacy and sexuality in residents' lives contributes to iatrogenic loneliness experienced in residential care, and the importance of considering these issues together. RESEARCH DESIGN: The study utilised a constructionist methodology, investigating the meanings associated with intimacy, loneliness, and ageing. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: Qualitative data used in this study are drawn from a larger dataset of a mixed-methods study. Interviews were completed as follows: staff, 21 individual interviews, and two groups with a total of 13 additional people; residents, 26 interviews with 28 people; and family members, 12 interviews with 13 people. FINDINGS: Five key themes were identified in the data analysis: loneliness and relational identity, loneliness and functional relationships, loneliness and disrupted intimacy, loneliness and liminality, and loneliness and the built environment. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The study was approved by a University Human Ethics Committee. Participation was voluntary. Consent was gained and confidentiality upheld. DISCUSSION: Residents' expression of intimacy and sexuality can be compromised through paternalism, ageism, restrictive policies, care-rationing and functional care, alienating residents from sustaining and developing significant relationships. Attitudes and cultural beliefs of staff and family members about ageing and intimacy, compounded by architectural design, may intensify loneliness. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses have a pivotal role in ensuring policies and practice enhance social citizenship.