Exploring the Impact of Prostate Cancer on Men's Sexual Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this research was to better understand the impact of prostate cancer and its treatment on a broad range of aspects of men's sexual well-being. Interviews were conducted with 19 men. The men ranged in age from 49 to 74 years and were 1 to 5 years posttreatment. Our results suggest that some but not all aspects of men's sexual well-being are affected by treatment for prostate cancer. Further, the specific aspects that were affected as well as their emotional impact varied considerably from individual to individual. Most of the men reported that, prior to diagnosis and treatment, they engaged in regular sexual activity and that they had been satisfied or very satisfied with their sexual relationship. Following treatment, most (but not all) of the men reported no change in the amount and type of affection expressed, the quality of their romantic relationship, their self-concept as a man, or their sexual desire. In contrast, nearly all of the men described negative changes that were distressing to them in erections, orgasmic consistency, and sexual satisfaction. Further, most of the men believed that their sex life was over due to their erectile difficulties and so had stopped engaging in any sexual activity with their partner, although one third of them continued to masturbate. Five themes emerged with respect to factors that either contributed to or buffered the emotional impact of these changes: partner responses to changes in sexual functioning, effectiveness of medical treatments, communication with their partner about sexual functioning, acceptance of or resignation to sexual changes, and communication with physicians about sexual functioning. Finally, most participants felt that the health care system did not respond adequately to their needs. These results are discussed with respect to the importance of facilitating sexual communication between partners and between patients and health care providers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".