Medical Student Sexuality: How Sexual Experience and Sexuality Training Impact U.S. and Canadian Medical Studentsʼ Comfort in Dealing with Patientsʼ Sexuality in Clinical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine factors associated with students' comfort in addressing patients' sexuality in the clinical context. METHOD: The authors invited students enrolled in MD-degree-granting and osteopathic medical schools in the United States and Canada to participate in an anonymous Internet survey between February and July 2008. The survey assessed ethnodemographic factors and sexual history. Respondents also completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Male respondents completed the International Index of Erectile Function and the Premature Ejaculation Diagnostic Tool. Female respondents completed the Female Sexual Function Index and the Index of Sex Life. The authors used descriptive statistics, ANOVA, and multivariable logistic regression to analyze responses. RESULTS: The authors' analyses included 2,261 completed survey responses: 910 from men, 1,343 from women, and 8 from individuals who self-identified as "other" gendered. Over 53% of respondents (n = 1,206) stated that they felt they had not received sufficient training in medical school to address sexual concerns clinically. Despite this, 81% of students (n = 1,827) reported feeling comfortable dealing with their patients' sexuality issues. Students with limited sexual experience, students at risk for sexual problems, and students who felt that they had not been trained adequately were less likely to report being comfortable talking to patients about sexual health issues. CONCLUSIONS: Perception of inadequate sexuality training in medical school and personal issues pertaining to sex may be associated with students' difficulty in addressing patients' sexuality. Adequate training is preeminently associated with feeling comfortable addressing patients' sexuality and should be a priority for medical education.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 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".