Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31993919›Full record

ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2020

Romantic Intimacy in Autism: A Qualitative Analysis.

Giorgia Sala, Merrilyn Hooley, Mark A Stokes

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Self-reported Everyday Sources of Happiness and Unhappiness in Autistic Adults.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Giorgia SalaSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia.
Merrilyn HooleySchool of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia.
Mark A StokesSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia. mark.stokes@deakin.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6488-4544

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although autistic people have difficulties with social-emotional reciprocity, most still desire intimate romantic relationships. This study sought to identify enablers and barriers to emotional and physical intimacy for Autistic (n = 31) and non-autistic (n = 26) individuals. All participants completed an online survey including demographic information, the Autism Spectrum Quotient and questions on intimacy which were subject to thematic analysis. Enablers of intimacy for both groups included communication, sharing and similarity, respect and safety for self and other, and working on the relationship. Barriers for both groups included intra- and interpersonal conflicts; autistic people specifically highlighted uncertainty about relationships and communication. These findings suggest autistic and non-autistic people have similar notions of intimacy, yet have different challenges in experiencing it.

Indexed as

Sexual BehaviorAdultAutistic DisorderEmotionsFemaleHumansInterpersonal RelationsMaleSexual PartnersSurveys and QuestionnairesAustraliaAutismIntimacyRelationshipsSexuality

Identifiers

PMID31993919

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.