Development and Validation of a Brief Measure of Sexual Wellbeing for Population Surveys: The Natsal Sexual Wellbeing Measure (Natsal-SW).

Sexual wellbeing is an important aspect of population health. Addressing and monitoring it as a distinct issue requires valid measures. Our previous conceptual work identified seven domains of sexual wellbeing: security; respect; self-esteem; resilience; forgiveness; self-determination; and comfort. Here, we describe the development and validation of a measure of sexual wellbeing reflecting these domains. Based on the analysis of 40 semi-structured interviews, we operationalized domains into items, and refined them via cognitive interviews, workshops, and expert review. We tested the items via two web-based surveys (n = 590; n = 814). Using data from the first survey, we carried out exploratory factor analysis to assess and eliminate poor performing items. Using data from the second survey, we carried out confirmatory factor analysis to examine model fit and associations between the item reduced measure and external variables hypothesized to correlate with sexual wellbeing (external validity). A sub-sample (n = 113) repeated the second survey after 2 weeks to evaluate test-retest reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that a "general specific model" had best fit (RMSEA: 0.064; CFI: 0.975, TLI: 0.962), and functioned equivalently across age group, gender, sexual orientation, and relationship status. The final Natsal-SW measure comprised 13 items (from an initial set of 25). It was associated with external variables in the directions hypothesized (all p < .001), including mental wellbeing (0.454), self-esteem (0.564), body image (0.232), depression (-0.384), anxiety (-0.340), sexual satisfaction (0.680) and sexual distress (-0.615), and demonstrated good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.78). The measure enables sexual wellbeing to be quantified and understood within and across populations.

Access to and quality of sexual and reproductive health services in Britain during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study of patient experiences.

INTRODUCTION: Access to quality sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services remains imperative even during a pandemic. Our objective was to understand experiences of delayed or unsuccessful access to SRH services in Britain during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In October and November 2020 we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 14 women and six men reporting an unmet need for SRH services in the Natsal-COVID survey, a large-scale quasi-representative web-panel survey of sexual health and behaviour during COVID-19 (n=6654). We purposively sampled eligible participants using sociodemographic quotas. Inductive thematic analysis was used to explore service access and quality and to identify lessons for future SRH service delivery. RESULTS: Twenty participants discussed experiences spanning 10 SRH services including contraception and antenatal/maternity care. Participants reported hesitancy and self-censorship of need. Accessing telemedicine and 'socially-distanced' services required tenacity. Challenges included navigating changing information and procedures; perceptions of gatekeepers as obstructing access; and inflexible appointment systems. Concerns about reconfigured services included reduced privacy; decreased quality of interactions with professionals; reduced informal support; and fewer preventive SRH practices. However, some participants also described more streamlined services and staff efforts to compensate for disruptions. Many viewed positively the ongoing blending of telemedicine with in-person care. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted access and quality of SRH services. Participants' accounts revealed self-censorship of need, difficulty navigating shifting service configurations and perceived quality reductions. Telemedicine offers potential if intelligently combined with in-person care. We offer initial evidence-based recommendations for promoting an equitable restoration and future adaption of services.

Sexting among British adults: a qualitative analysis of sexting as emotion work governed by 'feeling rules'.

Sexting has generated considerable public and professional interest with concerns centring on young people, and potential harms to mental and sexual health. Little research thus far has explored the practice among adults and none has focused on the cultural norms relating to the emotional experience of sexting across different ages and genders. We conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with a diverse sample of adults aged 18-59 years in Britain on the role of digital technologies in participants' sexual lives. In this paper, we draw on the accounts of 34 people with experience of sexting. We identified three main themes in participants' accounts related to the emotional aspects of sexting: (1) trust, (2) desire/intimacy and (3) shame. Under each theme, we identified motivations, 'feeling rules', and examples of 'emotion work' relating to the self, the other and the dyad. We conclude that there are shared cultural norms that constitute what appropriate sexting should feel like. Interventions aiming to minimise harms arising from sexting need to build on commonly held cultural conventions regarding the 'rules of the game' concerning feelings as well as behaviours.

Balancing risk, intimacy and (non)compliance: a qualitative study of sex across household during COVID-19 social restrictions.

Government controls over intimate relationships, imposed to limit the spread of Sars-CoV-2, were unprecedented in modern times. This study draws on data from qualitative interviews with 18 participants in Natsal-COVID, a quasi-representative web-panel survey of the British population (n = 6,654 people), reporting that they had sex with someone from outside their household in the preceding four weeks; a period in which contact between households was restricted in the UK. Whilst only 10% of people reported sexual contact outside their household, among single people and those in non-cohabiting relationships, rates were much higher (Natsal-COVID). Our findings show that individuals did not take decisions to meet up with sexual partners lightly. Participants were motivated by needs-for connection, security, intimacy and a sense of normality. People balanced risks-of catching COVID-19, social judgement and punishment for rule-breaking-against other perceived risks, including to their mental health or relationships. We used situated rationality and social action theories of risk to demonstrate that people weighed up risk in socially situated ways and exhibited complex decision-making when deciding not to comply with restrictions. Understanding motivations for non-compliance is crucial to informing future public health messaging which accounts for the needs and circumstances of all population members.

Intimate physical contact between people from different households during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods study from a large, quasi-representative survey (Natsal-COVID).

OBJECTIVES: Physical distancing as a non-pharmaceutical intervention aims to reduce interactions between people to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Intimate physical contact outside the household (IPCOH) may expand transmission networks by connecting households. We aimed to explore whether intimacy needs impacted adherence to physical distancing following lockdown in Britain in March 2020. METHODS: The Natsal-COVID web-panel survey (July-August 2020) used quota-sampling and weighting to achieve a quasi-representative population sample. We estimate reporting of IPCOH with a romantic/sexual partner in the 4 weeks prior to interview, describe the type of contact, identify demographic and behavioural factors associated with IPCOH and present age-adjusted ORs (aORs). Qualitative interviews (n=18) were conducted to understand the context, reasons and decision making around IPCOH. RESULTS: Of 6654 participants aged 18-59 years, 9.9% (95% CI 9.1% to 10.6%) reported IPCOH. IPCOH was highest in those aged 18-24 (17.7%), identifying as gay or lesbian (19.5%), and in steady non-cohabiting relationships (56.3%). IPCOH was associated with reporting risk behaviours (eg, condomless sex, higher alcohol consumption). IPCOH was less likely among those reporting bad/very bad health (aOR 0.54; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.93) but more likely among those with COVID-19 symptoms and/or diagnosis (aOR 1.34; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.65). Two-thirds (64.4%) of IPCOH was reported as being within a support bubble. Qualitative interviews found that people reporting IPCOH deliberated over, and made efforts to mitigate, the risks. CONCLUSIONS: Given 90% of people did not report IPCOH, this contact may not be a large additional contributor to SARS-CoV-2 transmission, although heterogeneity exists within the population. Public health messages need to recognise how single people and partners living apart balance sexual intimacy and relationship needs with adherence to control measures.

Normalising abortion: what role can health professionals play?

BACKGROUND: Despite being a common gynaecological procedure, abortion continues to be widely stigmatised. The research and medical communities are increasingly considering ways of reducing stigma, and health professionals have a role to play in normalising abortion as part of routine sexual and reproductive healthcare (SRH). We sought to investigate how health professionals may normalise abortion and challenge prevailing negative sociocultural narratives. METHODS: As part of the Sexuality and Abortion Stigma Study (SASS), qualitative secondary analysis was conducted on two datasets containing health professionals' accounts of providing abortion in Scotland and England. A subsample of 20 interviews were subjected to in-depth, thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four key themes were identified in heath professionals' accounts: (1) encountering resistance to abortion from others working in SRH; (2) contending with prevailing negative sociocultural narratives of abortion; (3) enacting overt positivity towards abortion provision; and (4) presenting abortion as part of normal, routine healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: It is clear that negative attitudes toward abortion persist both inside and outside of healthcare systems, and need to be challenged in order to destigmatise those accessing and providing services. Health professionals can play a key role in normalising abortion, through the ways in which they frame their work and present abortion to women they treat, and others more widely. Our analysis suggests a key way to achieve this is by presenting abortion as part of normal, routine SRH, but that appropriate support and structural change are essential for normalisation to become embedded.