Radical prostatectomy: men's experiences and postoperative needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study sought to explore men's experiences after radical prostatectomy and whether they perceived their preoperative teaching adequately prepared them for postoperative recovery. Tape-recorded telephone and face-to-face interviews were conducted at days 2, 7 and 21, and 3 and 12 months postdischarge. BACKGROUND: Although verbal and written instruction about postoperative expectations and care are provided routinely before radical prostatectomy, patients express concern about a lack of preparation in managing urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. DESIGN: This qualitative descriptive study explored in-depth men's experiences during the year following their surgery. METHODS: Multiple, tape-recorded, semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 17 participants and a single, in-depth, face-to-face interview was conducted 12 months postoperatively with a subset of five men selected for their reflective and descriptive abilities. RESULTS: Although participants received comprehensive written and verbal information preoperatively, it was not sufficient to foster their management of all postoperative sequelae. Telephone follow-up, used as a data collection strategy, was helpful in fostering adjustment after surgery and relieved anxiety caused by side effects of surgery and unanswered questions. CONCLUSIONS: Pre- and postoperative teaching needs to make allowances for the impact of stress on the recall and processing of information. Written information in itself is not adequate to answer necessary questions and provide reassurance. Follow-up telephone support is recommended as a way of fostering adjustment after surgery. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study shows that: (i) Written information in itself is not adequate to answer necessary questions and provide reassurance, (ii) Nurses need to be prepared, both educationally and psychologically, to observe non-verbal cues and to address questions and concerns that are rarely voiced in ways that indicate their significance to the person and (iii) Men may not speak about sexuality issues in ways that accurately reflect the extent of their worry and/or distress about erectile dysfunction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".