Interviewing people with chronic illness about sexuality: an adaptation of the PLISSIT model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The author will draw on relevant research and her personal experience as someone who lives with a chronic illness to identify the challenges that are inherent in research interviews regarding sexuality in chronic illness. BACKGROUND: Although sexuality in chronic illness has become a significant body of research in the field of chronic illness, particularly in the field of cancer, there are few guidelines available to assist researchers in interviewing people about such an intimate and sensitive topic. CONCLUSIONS: The PLISSIT model used in clinical counselling could be adapted to be used by researchers in interviews about sexuality. With this model a researcher can cover in-depth interview on this individual's sexuality and sexual health. Also, with the use of the PLISSIT model as a research tool, many of the past myths concerning sexuality and sexual health can be exposed and changed. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The adaptation of the PLISSIT counselling model to an interviewing model can contribute to researchers feeling more confident with participants when interviewing them concerning their sexuality and sexual health. It may illicit more appropriate responses from individuals concerning their sexuality and sexual health.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it