Psychosexual distress in women with gynecologic cancer: a feasibility study of an online support group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The psychosexual concerns of gynecologic cancer patients are often unaddressed and there are limited resources available for women to deal with this highly sensitive topic. This feasibility study examines the participation rates and preliminary outcomes for an online support group designed specifically for women who are sexually distressed subsequent to gynecologic cancer treatment METHODS: A 12-week online intervention was developed to address the psychosexual impact of gynecologic cancer. This intervention included a professionally moderated, asynchronous discussion forum as well as the provision of psycho-educational materials addressing the psychosexual impact of gynecologic cancer. Each week, a new topic was introduced and relevant material was posted on the website. Women were encouraged to share their experiences related to the topic. Twenty-seven, sexually distressed, remitted gynecologic cancer patients were randomly assigned to immediate treatment or a waitlist control condition. Participants completed questionnaires at baseline, 4-month and 8-month follow-ups assessing sexual distress as the primary outcome as well as anxiety, depression, and illness intrusiveness. RESULTS: Participation rates differed between the two groups, with greater participation occurring in the second group. Exit interviews indicated that the majority of the participants were satisfied with the intervention. Intent-to-treat analyses suggest a small effect for reduction in sexual distress CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study suggests that women find this intervention acceptable. Further research is required to determine efficacy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".