Communication about erectile dysfunction among men with ED, partners of men with ED, and physicians: The Strike Up a Conversation Study (Part I)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common, consequential, and clinically neglected sexual problem. The current research is designed to study the experience of communication about ED among men with ED, partners of men with ED, and physicians who treat ED. Methods: Qualitative research with 10 men with ED, 10 female partners of men with ED, and 15 physicians who treat men with ED, was used to formulate questions pursued in quantitative research with larger samples of men with ED (N = 449), partners of men with ED (N = 429), and physicians who treat men with ED (N = 389), concerning communication about ED among these parties. Results: Men with ED and partners of men with ED reported strikingly similar perceptions of ED, positive responses to communicating about ED, and negative responses to failing to communicate about ED. Results concerning communication about ED with physicians, preferred attributes of oral therapy for ED, and correlates of PDE5 inhibitor therapy use are reported in Part II of this publication. Conclusions: These findings can be used to guide clinical counselling and patient education to facilitate communication about ED and treatment seeking for this condition where appropriate.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".