Challenges having conversations about sexuality in ambulatory settings: Part II— Health care provider perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer treatment can have a significant impact on an individual's quality of life. In particular, body image and sexuality can be compromised. There is increasing evidence that conversations about these specific consequences are not happening often between cancer patients and health care providers, especially in busy ambulatory settings. This study was undertaken to explore the perspectives of cancer care providers regarding the conversations about sexuality that happen following a cancer diagnosis. There was a desire to understand more about the barriers that exist with regards to having this conversation in daily practice. Thirty-four cancer care professionals (nurses, physicians, social workers and radiation therapists) were interviewed to explore their experiences in having conversations about sexuality. Transcripts were subjected to a standard qualitative content and theme analysis. Six themes emerged from the analysis. Overall, participants acknowledged treatment can have an impact on a patient's sexuality. For the most part, any conversations about sexuality topics occurred during informed consent processes before treatment began or when a patient raised a question about a side effect. However, these conversations rarely covered more than the physical side effects and did not focus on the impact of those side effects on emotional and personal relationships or intimacy. Most providers waited for patients to raise any concerns and expressed their own personal discomfort and lack of training in holding these types of conversations. They perceived the conversations as difficult for themselves and for patients. The findings support the need to clarify role expectations for cancer nurses, as well as other members of the cancer care team, about patient care regarding sexuality, and the provision of education to support the expected role.
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 | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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".