Table 3.
Employment status (n = 1,139) | P-value | Duration of relationship (yr) (n = 1,139) | P-value | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Full-time (n = 836) | Part-time (n = 111) | Students (n = 192) | <1 (n = 164) | 1-5 (n = 580) | 6-10 (n = 255) | ≥11 (n = 140) | |||
IES* | 27.2 ± 8.8 | 29.9 ± 7.2 | 26.5 ± 8.4 | .002 | 26.9 ± 7.7 | 26.3 ± 8.8 | 27.4 ± 8.9 | 32.2 ± 6.7 | <.001 |
IES ≥26, n (%) | 480 (57.4) | 81 (73.0) | 101 (52.6) | .002 | 93 (56.7) | 308 (53.1) | 147 (57.6) | 114 (81.4) | <.001 |
Intrusive score | 15.0±4.9 | 16.0±4.6 | 14.2±4.8 | .008 | 14.5±4.4 | 14.3±5.0 | 15.3±5.0 | 17.5±3.9 | <.001 |
Avoidance score | 12.3±4.7 | 14.0±3.9 | 12.3±4.8 | .001 | 12.4±4.4 | 12.0±4.8 | 12.1±4.6 | 14.8±3.8 | <.001 |
Sexual behavior † | |||||||||
Frequency of sexual intercourse during COVID-19, n (%) | |||||||||
Decreased | 28 (3.3) | 3 (2.7) | 9 (4.7) | .757 | 0 (0.0) | 36 (6.2) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (2.9) | <.001 |
Same as before | 581 (69.5) | 82 (73.9) | 131 (68.2) | 79 (48.2) | 402 (69.3) | 199 (78.0) | 114 (81.4) | ||
Increased | 227 (27.2) | 26 (23.4) | 52 (27.1) | 85 (51.8) | 142 (24.5) | 56 (22.0) | 22 (15.7) | ||
COVID-19 affected quality of usual sexual life, n (%) | |||||||||
Negatively | 33 (3.9) | 3 (2.7) | 17 (8.9) | <.001 | 11 (6.7) | 38 (6.6) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (4.7) | <.001 |
Same as before | 647 (77.4) | 89 (80.2) | 161 (83.9) | 104 (63.4) | 475 (81.9) | 204 (80.0) | 897 (78.8) | ||
Positively | 156 (18.7) | 19 (17.1) | 14 (7.3) | 49 (29.9) | 67 (11.6) | 51 (20.0) | 189 (16.6) | ||
COVID-19 affected emotional bonding, n (%) | |||||||||
Negatively | 29 (3.5) | 3 (2.7) | 15 (7.8) | <.001 | 11 (6.7) | 33 (5.7) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (2.1) | <.001 |
No change | 384 (45.9) | 78 (70.3) | 134 (69.8) | 68 (41.5) | 333 (57.4) | 122 (47.8) | 73 (52.1) | ||
Positively | 423 (50.6) | 30 (27.0) | 43 (22.4) | 85 (51.8) | 214 (36.9) | 133 (52.2) | 64 (45.7) |
Mean ± SD (all such values).
Due to rounding, the total may not add to 100% exactly.Bold P-values means P < .05