MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1931385631 · doi:10.1111/jsm.12049

Communication and Intimacy-Enhancing Interventions for Men Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer and Their Partners

2013· review· en· W1931385631 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christian J. Nelson, Joslyn Kenowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychosocialIntervention (counseling)PsychotherapistProstate cancerPsychologySurvivorship curveClinical psychologyMedicineCancerPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The sexual dysfunction following prostate cancer treatments often leads to a reduction in intimate contact for couples. A number of psychosocial interventions have been developed to enhance intimacy in these couples. This paper reviews three of these interventions and is a summary of a presentation given as part of a symposium at the 2011 Cancer Survivorship and Sexual Health Meeting. AIM: The goal of this presentation was to: (i) review three types of psychosocial interventions; and (ii) describe the methodological issues highlighted by these interventions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Validated measures of relationship intimacy and communication. METHODS: To be selected, the interventions had to be: a randomized control trial, focus on a couples approach to therapy, and report at least one relationship outcome. RESULTS: The results were not consistent within or across studies, and suggest that some specific aspects of the interventions may be helpful for the patient, while other aspects of the studies may be helpful for the partner. The Northouse et al. study suggests that partners may benefit from a focus on couple work, as compared to the patient. The Canada et al. study indicates that when focusing on sexual functioning, working with a couple did not show significant benefit compared to working with a man alone. The study did show, however, that a sexual-based intervention can improve the use of erectile dysfunction treatments and suggests patients may benefit from specific focus on side effects of treatment. The Manne et al. study highlights the importance of targeting these interventions to couples who report distress, and for distressed couples, an intervention can show positive results. CONCLUSIONS: Intimacy enhancing interventions can be effective for couples, while the partners may benefit more from couples work; the patients may benefit more from focus on specific side effects.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207