scholarly journals Corrigendum: Exploring Physiological Linkage in Same-Sex Male Couples

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaomin Li ◽  
Ashley Kuelz ◽  
Savannah Boyd ◽  
Kristin August ◽  
Charlotte Markey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Same Sex ◽  
Male Couples ◽  
Physiological Linkage

scholarly journals Exploring Physiological Linkage in Same-Sex Male Couples

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaomin Li ◽  
Ashley Kuelz ◽  
Savannah Boyd ◽  
Kristin August ◽  
Charlotte Markey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Models ◽  
Recovery Period ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Baseline Period ◽  
Relationship Functioning ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Male Couples ◽  
Relationship Length ◽  
Health Goals ◽  
Physiological Linkage

We explore physiological linkage (i.e., covariation of physiological channels between interacting partners; PL) among 34 same-sex male couples. Interbeat interval, an indicator of cardiovascular arousal, was collected across four conversational contexts in the lab: (1) a baseline period that did not involve conversation, (2) a conversation about body image, (3) a conversation about health goals, and (4) a recovery period that allowed for unstructured conversation. We used a newly developed R statistical package (i.e., rties; Butler and Barnard, 2019) that simplifies the use of dynamic models for investigating interpersonal emotional processes. We identified two different PL patterns: (1) a simple one that was characterized by stable synchronization and low frequency of oscillation; and (2) a complex one that was characterized by drifting synchronization, high frequency of oscillation, and eventual damping. Guided by social baseline theory and the reactive flexibility perspective, we explored the interactions between couple relationship functioning (i.e., love, conflict, commitment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship length) and conversational context as predictors of the PL patterns. The results suggest that partners in well-functioning relationships and emotionally challenging situations may be especially likely to show complex PL patterns that may reflect (or support) coregulatory processes.

Status of same-sex partnerships in Ukraine

2020 ◽  
pp. 143-166
Author(s):  
MAKSYM KASIANZUK ◽  
SVIATOSLAV SHEREMET ◽  
OLESIA TROFYMENKO
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
Quantitative Information ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Bisexual Men ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Significant Similarity ◽  
Male Couples ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
And Bisexual

The proposed article aims to summarize available quantitative and qualitative data on same-sex partnerships in Ukraine, including data on the presence of children in such partnerships, over the last twenty years (1999–2018). The increasing number of publications on various aspects of the existence of same-sex couples in English demonstrates the relevance of the topic. The information available in Ukraine is the richest in comparison with other post-Soviet countries of the Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia region. At the same time, LGBT families remain out of the academic community in Ukraine, and the data collected are mostly contained in the so-called "gray literature" (mainly research reports by public organizations), and are not introduced into scientific circulation. It is shown that, depending on the composition of the sample and the definition of same-sex partnership used by the researchers, this percentage most often falls within the range of 16–28% of surveyed homosexual and bisexual men residing in the capital and regional centers of Ukraine. Quantitative information on women partnerships is extremely limited (one survey of a small sample), and there is no quantitative data for the couples, where one or both partners are transgenders. Quantitative information on children in same-sex partnerships is also very limited, and the data in the literature (with all the methodological disadvantages indicated) ranges from 14% to 29% of LGB, which have children, but it is unknown whether these children were raised in same-sex couples. With regard to quality information, the situation is different — a little bit more is known about the status of women and partly transgender partnerships (including the issue of children in such families) than about male couples. Separate data demonstrates a significant similarity in the same-sex partnership structure to the typical heterosexual egalitarian family model (two partners and their children), taking into account more egalitarian marriage roles, lack of formal status, and associated socio-economic risks. Further research (including national level) should be based on a common understanding of what constitutes “same-sex partnership”, what are the characteristics of same-sex partnership (civil, family), what characteristics of civil partnership turn it into a“family”, etc.

scholarly journals Integrating HIV Prevention and Relationship Education for Young Same-Sex Male Couples: A Pilot Trial of the 2GETHER Intervention

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (8) ◽  
pp. 2464-2478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael E. Newcomb ◽  
Kathryn R. Macapagal ◽  
Brian A. Feinstein ◽  
Emily Bettin ◽  
Gregory Swann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hiv Prevention ◽  
Pilot Trial ◽  
Relationship Education ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Male Couples

A Dyadic Perspective on Sexual Agreements Among Same-Sex Male Couples in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (11) ◽  
pp. 3107-3123
Author(s):  
Erin Rogers ◽  
Matthew J. Mimiaga ◽  
Robert Garofalo ◽  
Emily Brown ◽  
Anna Bratcher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Male Couples ◽  
Sexual Agreements

Family Building by Same-Sex Male Couples via Gestational Surrogacy

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (05) ◽  
pp. 408-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Kim
Keyword(s):  
Same Sex ◽  
Male Couples ◽  
Advance Planning ◽  
Family Building ◽  
American Society ◽  
Gestational Surrogacy ◽  
Donor Oocytes ◽  
Gestational Carrier ◽  
Fda Regulations

AbstractBest estimates suggest that the number of households with same-sex male couples is increasing. One option for family building by same-sex male couples is gestational surrogacy. Embryos would be generated in vitro, using the biologic father's sperm with donor oocytes, and another woman (the gestational carrier) would undergo an embryo transfer to bear a child. Conceiving via gestational surrogacy requires advance planning, not only to coordinate the oocyte donor and gestational carrier but also to comply with regulations set forth by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) has also published recommendations for practices using gestational carriers, which, in many cases, are more stringent than the FDA regulations. This article will review the FDA regulations and ASRM recommendations and their implications for same-sex male couples who plan to conceive via gestational surrogacy.

scholarly journals Assisted reproduction in a cohort of same-sex male couples and single men

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie A. Grover ◽  
Ziva Shmorgun ◽  
Sergey I. Moskovtsev ◽  
Ari Baratz ◽  
Clifford L. Librach
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Reproduction ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Male Couples ◽  
Single Men

scholarly journals Recommendations From a Descriptive Evaluation to Improve Screening Procedures for Web-Based Studies With Couples: Cross-Sectional Study (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason W Mitchell ◽  
Tanaka M D Chavanduka ◽  
Stephen Sullivan ◽  
Rob Stephenson
Keyword(s):  
Research Study ◽  
The United States ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Data Validation ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Dyadic Relationship ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Male Couples

BACKGROUND Although there are a number of advantages to using the internet to recruit and enroll participants into Web-based research studies, these advantages hinge on data validity. In response to this concern, researchers have provided recommendations for how best to screen for fraudulent survey entries and to handle potentially invalid responses. Yet, the majority of this previous work focuses on screening (ie, verification that individual met the inclusion criteria) and validating data from 1 individual, and not from 2 people who are in a dyadic relationship with one another (eg, same-sex male couple; mother and daughter). Although many of the same data validation and screening recommendations for Web-based studies with individual participants can be used with dyads, there are differences and challenges that need to be considered. OBJECTIVE This paper aimed to describe the methods used to verify and validate couples’ relationships and data from a Web-based research study, as well as the associated lessons learned for application toward future Web-based studies involving the screening and enrollment of couples with dyadic data collection. METHODS We conducted a descriptive evaluation of the procedures and associated benchmarks (ie, decision rules) used to verify couples’ relationships and validate whether data uniquely came from each partner of the couple. Data came from a large convenience sample of same-sex male couples in the United States, who were recruited through social media venues for a Web-based, mixed methods HIV prevention research study. RESULTS Among the 3815 individuals who initiated eligibility screening, 1536 paired individuals (ie, data from both partners of a dyad) were assessed for relationship verification; all passed this benchmark. For data validation, 450 paired individuals (225 dyads) were identified as fraudulent and failed this benchmark, resulting in a total sample size of 1086 paired participants representing 543 same-sex male couples who were enrolled. The lessons learned from the procedures used to screen couples for this Web-based research study have led us to identify and describe four areas that warrant careful attention: (1) creation of new and replacement of certain relationship verification items, (2) identification of resources needed relative to using a manual or electronic approach for screening, (3) examination of approaches to link and identify both partners of the couple, and (4) handling of <i>bots</i>. CONCLUSIONS The screening items and associated rules used to verify and validate couples’ relationships and data worked yet required extensive resources to implement. New or updating some items to verify a couple’s relationship may be beneficial for future studies. The procedures used to link and identify whether both partners were coupled also worked, yet they call into question whether new approaches are possible to help increase linkage, suggesting the need for further inquiry.

scholarly journals Recommendations From a Descriptive Evaluation to Improve Screening Procedures for Web-Based Studies With Couples: Cross-Sectional Study

10.2196/15079 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. e15079
Author(s):  
Jason W Mitchell ◽  
Tanaka M D Chavanduka ◽  
Stephen Sullivan ◽  
Rob Stephenson
Keyword(s):  
Research Study ◽  
The United States ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Data Validation ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Dyadic Relationship ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Male Couples

Background Although there are a number of advantages to using the internet to recruit and enroll participants into Web-based research studies, these advantages hinge on data validity. In response to this concern, researchers have provided recommendations for how best to screen for fraudulent survey entries and to handle potentially invalid responses. Yet, the majority of this previous work focuses on screening (ie, verification that individual met the inclusion criteria) and validating data from 1 individual, and not from 2 people who are in a dyadic relationship with one another (eg, same-sex male couple; mother and daughter). Although many of the same data validation and screening recommendations for Web-based studies with individual participants can be used with dyads, there are differences and challenges that need to be considered. Objective This paper aimed to describe the methods used to verify and validate couples’ relationships and data from a Web-based research study, as well as the associated lessons learned for application toward future Web-based studies involving the screening and enrollment of couples with dyadic data collection. Methods We conducted a descriptive evaluation of the procedures and associated benchmarks (ie, decision rules) used to verify couples’ relationships and validate whether data uniquely came from each partner of the couple. Data came from a large convenience sample of same-sex male couples in the United States, who were recruited through social media venues for a Web-based, mixed methods HIV prevention research study. Results Among the 3815 individuals who initiated eligibility screening, 1536 paired individuals (ie, data from both partners of a dyad) were assessed for relationship verification; all passed this benchmark. For data validation, 450 paired individuals (225 dyads) were identified as fraudulent and failed this benchmark, resulting in a total sample size of 1086 paired participants representing 543 same-sex male couples who were enrolled. The lessons learned from the procedures used to screen couples for this Web-based research study have led us to identify and describe four areas that warrant careful attention: (1) creation of new and replacement of certain relationship verification items, (2) identification of resources needed relative to using a manual or electronic approach for screening, (3) examination of approaches to link and identify both partners of the couple, and (4) handling of bots. Conclusions The screening items and associated rules used to verify and validate couples’ relationships and data worked yet required extensive resources to implement. New or updating some items to verify a couple’s relationship may be beneficial for future studies. The procedures used to link and identify whether both partners were coupled also worked, yet they call into question whether new approaches are possible to help increase linkage, suggesting the need for further inquiry.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document