Hard Times: Prostate Cancer Patients’ Experiences with Erectile Aids
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) treatments commonly lead to erectile difficulties. While the mainstay treatment is erectile aids (EAs) to promote erectile recovery, some men never use these treatments and those whose do use EAs often abandon them in the long-term. AIM: The goal of this study was to examine PCa patients' experiences with EAs, to elucidate relationships between experiences with EAs on psychological and sexual well-being, and to explore benefits and drawbacks to EA use. METHODS: A self-report survey including validated questionnaires was administered to examine PCa patients' use and perceptions of helpfulness of EAs, and to characterize associations between use, perceived helpfulness, and psychological and sexual well-being. The survey was followed by an open-ended prompt to explore participants' experiences with EAs. OUTCOMES: We surveyed 260 North American men, up to 25 years after receiving treatment for PCa. Three groups of patients were observed, including those who used EAs and perceived them to be helpful, those who used EAs and perceived them to be unhelpful, as well as a smaller group of patients who never used EAs. RESULTS: Around 80% of the sample were using or had used EAs. Despite the high frequency of use, not all men found EAs helpful. Men who used EAs and found them unhelpful reported poorer psychological and sexual well-being compared to men who didn't use aids or who used EAs but found them helpful. Results indicated both benefits and drawbacks to the use of EAs. Benefits related largely to the efficacy of the aid in promoting erections. A wide range of drawbacks were also reported. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Given the negative sexual and psychological impacts associated with using EAs and finding them unhelpful, we suggest that researchers and health care providers should take care to proactively address potential challenges that are common with EA use, and also to consider the risks of failed attempts with EAs. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: By using both scaled and open-ended questions, a more nuanced picture of the relative benefits and limitations of EA use within the PCa population is presented. As responses were not mandatory, a subset of participants provided comments about the use of EAs. Additionally, the sample was quite homogenous, with mostly white, American and well-educated participants, so it therefore lacks generalizability to other populations. CONCLUSION: This paper illustrates several challenges to EA use, while providing insight into reasons for abandonment of use of EAs. Walker LM, Sears CS, Santos-Iglesias P, et al. Hard Times: Prostate Cancer Patients' Experiences with Erectile Aids. J Sex Med 2021;18:1775-1787.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».