Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 231–236 | Cite as

The importance of intimacy to men living in a nursing home

  • Laura Bullard-Poe
  • Cicely Powell
  • Thomas Mulligan
Article

Abstract

Intimacy and its contribution to life satisfaction have not been explored among institutionalized elders. We studied residents of a Veterans Affairs nursing home and assessed cognitive and physical function, life satisfaction, and importance of intimacy. The Folstein Mini-Mental State, Barthel Index, Life Satisfaction Index-Z, and a series of vignettes were used to assess each domain. Vignettes depicted various scenarios (e.g., recent admission to a nursing home, notification of diagnosis of a terminal disease), and asked the subject to rate the importance of intimate social, intellectual, emotional, or physical interactions. Social intimacy was rated as most important, followed by nonsexual physical, intellectual, emotional, and finally, sexual-physical intimacy (social vs. sexual-physical, p =0.0013). In addition, social (rs =.299, p =0.023), nonsexual physical (rs =.312, p =0.019), and intellectual (rs =.382, p =0.005) intimacy were associated with life satisfaction. Nursing home care providers can enhance resident quality of life through social, intellectual, and nonsexual physical interactions even when the underlying medical, physical, or cognitive deficit cannot be ameliorated.

Key words

intimacy aged nursing home 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S., and McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini-Mental State: A practical method of grading the cognitive state for the clinician.J. Psychiat. Res. 12: 189–198.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Mahoney, F. I.,and Barthel, D. W. (1965). Functional status: The Barthel Index.Maryland State Med. J. 14: 61–65.Google Scholar
  3. Maslow, A. H. (1970).Motivation and Personality 2nd ed., Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Neugarten, B. L., Havighurst, R. J., and Tobin, S. S. (1961). The measurement of life satisfaction.J. Gerontol. 16: 134–143.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Osberg, J. S., McGinnis, G. E., DeJong, G., and Seward, M. L. (1987). Life satisfaction and quality of life among disabled elderly adults.J. Gerontol. 42: 228–230.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Renshaw, D. C. (1984). Intimacy and intercourse.Med. Aspects Hum. Sex. 18: 70–76.Google Scholar
  7. Schaefer, M. T., and Olson, D. H. (1981). The assessment of social intimacy.J. Pers. Assess. 7: 47–60.Google Scholar
  8. Weiss, L. J. (1983).Intimacy and adaptation. In Weg, R. B. (ed.),Sexuality in the Later Years: Roles and Behavior Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Bullard-Poe
    • 1
    • 2
  • Cicely Powell
    • 1
    • 2
  • Thomas Mulligan
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Social Work and Division of Geriatric Medicine, Medical College of VirginiaVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA
  2. 2.Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Affairs Medical CenterRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations